In matrimonial proceedings, the court consistently prioritizes the wife's convenience and comparative hardship when exercising the power of transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, especially when she has minor children, lacks independent income, or faces potential harassment.

Order

1. As all these transfer petitions arise out of similar circumstances and involve common questions of law, they are being decided by this common order.

2. All the petitions have been preferred by the petitioner–wife seeking transfer of proceedings instituted by the respondent–husband under various provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955/Guardian & Wards Act, 1890/Specific Relief Act, 1963 to the Court within whose jurisdiction the petitioner–wife is presently residing/working.

3. The petitioners in the respective applications have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the various proceedings pending before different Courts be transferred to the place of their residence/workplace. Although the factual matrix in each petition varies, the grounds raised by the Petitioner wives are substantially common and relate to the hardships faced by them in attending proceedings at distant forums.

4. In all these petitions service upon the respondents stand duly complete. However, despite completion of service, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents in CTA Nos. 185/2025 and 294/2025.

5. In some of the petitions, it has been urged that the petitioner-wife, being a woman with minor child/children solely under her care, faces grave difficulty in travelling long distances, particularly in the absence of any family member to accompany her, rendering such travel with minors practically impossible. In some matters, the petitioner-wife has asserted that she is financially dependent upon her parents, lacking any independent source of income. In some, it has been averred that they reside with their ailing or aged parents, who require constant supervision.

6. While in other matters, it has additionally been submitted that the petitioner–wife has already instituted proceedings against her husband under Section 12/23 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 / Section 9 or 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955/ Section 144 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , at the place where she is presently residing. It is urged that, despite the pendency of these proceedings, the respondent–husband has instituted a separate case in another district/city/town only with the intent to cause harassment. In these circumstances, it would be extremely difficult and practically impossible for her to attend the proceedings before the Court chosen by the husband.

7. Heard the Counsels.

8. It is a well-settled proposition of law that in matrimonial matters generally, it is wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering the plea of transfer. In N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha , (2022 INSC 1310) (decided on 18.07.2022), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

“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 both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

9. So far as the ground