Court says distance, pending maintenance default, and welfare of minor daughter justify shifting matrimonial proceedings from Morbi to Bhachau; husband may join via video conferencing.
The Gujarat High Court has allowed a wife’s plea to transfer a family suit filed by her husband from the Family Court at Morbi to the concerned court at Bhachau, Kutch, holding that the convenience of the wife and the welfare of the minor child were decisive factors in matrimonial litigation.
Justice Maulik J. Shelat, hearing a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, noted that the wife was residing at her parental home in Rapar, Kutch, about 100 kilometres away from Morbi, where the husband had instituted Family Suit No. 4 of 2026. The Court observed that the woman was also responsible for caring for her minor daughter, which added to her hardship in travelling for court proceedings.
The wife’s counsel argued that attending hearings at Morbi would cause serious inconvenience, especially because the husband had already defaulted in paying maintenance ordered by the Family Court. It was submitted that due to his failure to comply with the maintenance order, he had even been sent to jail before clearing the dues.
The husband opposed the transfer, contending that no real hardship would be caused to the wife and that his financial condition had prevented timely payment of maintenance. He also suggested that the wife could attend proceedings through video conferencing.
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, and N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, all of which emphasize the importance of the wife’s convenience in matrimonial transfer matters.
The Court found that the comparative hardship to the wife was greater. It also took note of the husband’s failure to pay maintenance and observed prima facie that he was not in a position to regularly maintain the wife and minor child. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the transfer was justified.
Accordingly, the High Court ordered that the family suit pending before the Family Court at Morbi be transferred to the concerned court at Bhachau, Kutch.
The Court also issued practical directions after transfer. It requested the Bhachau court to try to have the transferred family suit and the wife’s maintenance proceedings heard by the same court. The husband was given liberty to seek common dates in both matters and to request participation through video conferencing or online mode, which the court may consider sympathetically unless physical presence is required at a particular stage.
Bottom Line :
Transfer of matrimonial proceedings - Convenience of wife and welfare of minor child are relevant considerations - Where wife resides at parental home about 100 kilometres away from the Court where husband filed family suit, is caring for minor daughter, and husband has defaulted in payment of maintenance, transfer of family suit to Court having jurisdiction near wife's residence is justified - Husband may be permitted to seek common dates and to join proceedings through video conferencing.
Statutory provision(s): Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 144, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Bayaben alias Bina v. Jaysukhbhai Kanjibhai Madhvi, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987647
