In matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 of the CPC, the convenience of the wife is generally the primary consideration, especially when she lacks independent income and faces significant travel distance to attend proceedings.

Order on Board

02/03/2026

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 filed by the respondent/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod District Balod (C.G.), to the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.).

2. The petitioner and respondent are legally wedded Hindus, married on 24.02.2023 as per customary rites. After marriage, the petitioner resided at her matrimonial home with the respondent and his family.

3. Subsequently, the respondent and his family allegedly began quarrelling with the petitioner and restricted her communication with her parents. Upon objection, she was taken to Bilaspur, where the alleged harassment continued. Thereafter, the petitioner was left at her parental home, where she has been residing since.

4. Despite repeated attempts to return to her matrimonial home, the respondent allegedly refused to take her back and threatened divorce. The petitioner is a homemaker with no independent income and is dependent on her parents. She later received notice from the Family Court, Balod, regarding a petition filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Civil Suit No. 120A/2024) on grounds of desertion, adultery, and cruelty.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently residing with her parents at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), and is facing considerable difÏculty in appearing before the Family Court at Balod on each and every date of hearing in view of the distance of more than 230–240 kilometers and her lack of independent income. It is further submitted that she apprehends threat to her safety if compelled to attend the proceedings at Balod.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for transfer and submits that the petitioner herself is trying to harass the respondent by filing the present transfer petition. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are false and baseless and that she has deliberately withdrawn from the society of the respondent without any sufÏcient cause. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner is facing any inconvenience, she may be permitted to appear before the Family Court, Balod through video conferencing, and therefore no case for transfer is made out.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that generally it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of bo