-
by sayum
25 September 2026 6:47 AM
"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." Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a ruling dated 09 September 2026, reiterated that in petitions seeking the transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife remains the paramount consideration for the court.
A single judge bench of Justice Romesh Verma held that the balance of convenience in such matters must prioritize the wife's ability to participate in legal proceedings without undue hardship, citing the settled law established by the Supreme Court of India.
The petitioner-wife sought the transfer of a divorce petition filed by her husband from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur Bushahr to the Family Court at Solan. The petitioner, currently residing in Solan and working in Kasauli, contended that traveling over 160 kilometers to attend hearings at Rampur Bushahr placed an insurmountable burden upon her. The respondent-husband opposed the transfer, arguing that the petitioner is a government employee and that the case had already reached the evidence stage, suggesting that video conferencing would suffice to address any logistical grievances.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the distance and the nature of the parties' circumstances warranted the invocation of the Court's power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to transfer the matrimonial proceedings. The Court also examined the scope of its duty to ensure a "fair trial" by balancing the convenience of the parties involved.
Court Reaffirms Preference for Wife's Convenience
The Court observed that the judicial trend in India consistently favors the transfer of matrimonial cases to a location convenient for the wife. Referring to the precedent set in Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, the bench noted that when a wife seeks a transfer, her convenience is the prime consideration against which the husband's plea must be weighed.
Broad Parameters for Section 24 CPC
The Court relied upon the principles laid down in Kulwinder Kaur alias Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh vs Kandi Friends Education Trust, emphasizing that the power to transfer is a duty when the ends of justice demand it. The bench highlighted that the objective is to ensure that neither party suffers an unreasonable burden that could impede their access to justice or their ability to participate effectively in the trial.
Bold pull-quote: "Given the prevailing socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."
Economic and Social Factors in Adjudication
The Court further underscored the cardinal principles outlined in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, noting that courts must analyze the economic and social context of the spouses. In the present case, the Court found that the travel distance of 160 kilometers, requiring over eight hours of transit, constituted a significant hardship for the petitioner. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument regarding the utility of video conferencing in lieu of a transfer, opting instead to relocate the proceedings to the petitioner’s place of residence.
Final Directions for Transfer
Allowing the petition, the Court ordered the transfer of the divorce proceedings from Rampur Bushahr to the Family Court, Solan. The parties were directed to appear before the transferee court on 29 September 2026 without the need for fresh notices, with the instruction that the case should proceed from the exact stage reached before the original court, thereby ensuring continuity and preventing unnecessary delays.
Date of Decision: 09 September 2026
