In matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, the 'balance of convenience'—particularly the wife's financial and security constraints—can override the plaintiff's right as 'dominus litis' to choose the forum, especially when the husband initiated the proceedings.

ORDER

Heard Mr. J. Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition, under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the CPC, is preferred by the petitioner for transferring Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025, pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Tinsukia, to the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat.

3. Mr. Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The marriage between the present petitioner and the respondent was registered under the Special marriage Act, 1954, on 18/12/2023 before the Marriage Officer, Jorhat, Assam. After the marriage they lived together as husband and wife for quite some time. Thereafter, marital discord surfaced between them and then on 26-08-2025, the respondent has filed a suit before the Ld. District Judge, Tinsukia under Section 27 (b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of the marriage between him and the petitioner, being Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025. In the said suit notice was issued to the petitioner, but, the petitioner could not appear and contest case at Tinsukia as she is a woman residing at Jorhat and she is completely dependent upon her parents, having no source of earning of her own. On such count she is unable to travel to Tinsukia from Jorhat and also due to safety and security reasons. Mr. Abbas also submits that the marriage was solemnised at Jorhat and the petitioner is residing at Jorhat. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41, he submits that since the husband has instituted the suit, the wife’s convenience, therefore, must be looked into. Under such circumstances, Mr. Abbas submits that the Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025, may be transferred from the court of Ld. District Judge, Tinsukia to the court of Ld. District Judge, Jorhat.

4. Per contra, Ms. P.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. She submits that the petitioner is working as teacher in a private residential School at Arunachal Pradesh with meagre amount of salary and that it becomes impossible for him also to appear and contest the proceeding at Jorhat, in the event of the petition being allowed. She also submits that the being the dominus litis, the respondent has the right to choose the place where the suit is to be instituted. Under the aforesaid circumstances she has contended to dismiss this petition.

5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions referred by the parties.

6. It is to be noted here that Section 24 of the CPC provides for transfer of a suit. It reads as under:-

“(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage

(a) Transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or

(b) Withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from wh