Court emphasizes judicial discretion under Section 24 CPC, ruling that wife's convenience alone cannot warrant transfer without substantial hardship or prejudice.
In a recent judgment dated September 14, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, declined the transfer of Divorce Case No. 414 of 2025 from the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, to the Family Court, Hamirpur. The transfer application was filed by Smt. Taruni Tripathi, the wife, seeking relocation of the divorce proceedings instituted by her husband, Duresh Tripathi, on grounds of matrimonial discord.
The applicant contended that she resided at her parental home in Hamirpur and was already involved in related legal proceedings there, including cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She argued that attending proceedings in Kanpur Nagar, situated over 60 kilometers away, would cause significant inconvenience, particularly considering her responsibility for minor children and her limited means.
However, the Court noted that the applicant's actual place of residence was disputed, with the opposite party asserting that she lived in Pukhrayan, District Kanpur Dehat, adjacent to Kanpur Nagar. The Court emphasized that such factual disputes are not to be adjudicated in transfer applications but are relevant to assessing the claimed inconvenience.
The Court reiterated the discretionary nature of the power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows transfer of cases to prevent hardship or prejudice. It underscored that while the convenience of the wife is a significant factor, it is not an absolute rule. A cumulative assessment of all circumstances, including the economic and social conditions of both parties, distance, accessibility, pendency of connected proceedings, and any safety apprehensions, must guide the decision.
The Court found no concrete evidence of substantial travel hardship, lack of transportation, or the inability to attend proceedings effectively at Kanpur Nagar. The applicant's apprehensions about safety were countered by similar claims from the opposite party, both having lodged complaints with police authorities. The Court held that mere apprehensions without a reasonable basis do not justify transfer.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the circumstances did not disclose sufficient hardship or prejudice warranting transfer of the divorce proceedings. The judgment clarified that the observations were confined to the transfer application and did not reflect on the merits of the matrimonial dispute itself. It also directed the Family Court at Kanpur Nagar to proceed expeditiously with the case, avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
This ruling highlights the balanced approach adopted by Indian courts in matrimonial matters, where procedural convenience must be weighed against fairness and the efficient administration of justice.
Bottom Line:
Transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Convenience of wife is a relevant factor, but not an absolute rule for granting transfer. A cumulative assessment of circumstances, such as hardship, inconvenience, or prejudice to either party, is required to decide on the transfer.
Statutory provision(s): Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 13, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 12, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 144
Smt. Taruni Tripathi v. Duresh Tripathi, (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2980758
