Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife And Minor Child Overrides Husband's Request For Virtual Hearing In Transfer Petitions: Gujarat High Court

"It is also open for the opponent to request the concerned Court to join the proceedings through video conferencing / online mode and if such a request is made by the opponent, the Court concerned may also consider the same unless the physical presence of the opponent is required." Gujarat High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 25, 2026, held that the convenience of the wife, particularly when she is tasked with the care of a minor child, constitutes a paramount consideration for the transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC.

Justice Maulik J. Shelat observed that while technology offers virtual participation, it cannot be used as a ground to compel a spouse to litigate in a distant forum against her convenience, especially when the husband’s conduct in maintaining the family has been inconsistent.

The applicant-wife sought the transfer of a family suit pending before the Family Court at Morbi to the court at Bhachau, Kutch. The wife contended that the distance between her residence in Rapar and the court in Morbi was approximately 100 kilometers, making it burdensome to travel while simultaneously caring for her minor daughter. Furthermore, she highlighted that the husband had previously failed to comply with maintenance orders under Section 144 of the BNSS, leading to his incarceration.

The primary question before the court was whether the inconvenience caused to the wife in traveling to a distant forum warrants the transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC. The court was further tasked with determining whether the availability of video conferencing facilities could be a valid ground to deny a transfer application filed by the wife.

Legal Precedent On Transfer

The High Court relied on settled law, including the Supreme Court’s rulings in Smita Singh versus Kumar Sanjay, N.C.V. Aishwarya versus A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo. These precedents consistently establish that in matters of matrimonial litigation, the convenience of the wife is a significant factor. The court emphasized that the burden of litigation should not be rendered prohibitive for the spouse who is primary caregiver to a child.

Husband’s Financial and Conduct Records

The court took note of the husband’s failure to fulfill maintenance obligations, which resulted in his detention. While the husband argued that his inability to pay was due to poor financial condition and suggested that the matter could be heard virtually to save him the hardship of travel, the court remained unimpressed. It held that the wife’s hardship was significantly higher, justifying a shift in jurisdiction.

Balancing Technology and Access to Justice

The court clarified that while virtual hearings are a modern convenience, they are not a substitute for the fundamental right of a party to seek transfer on grounds of extreme inconvenience. However, to maintain procedural fairness, the court granted the husband the liberty to seek virtual attendance.

"The court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant, considering overall facts and circumstances as also keeping in mind the inconvenience that may cause to the applicant vis-à-vis the respondent which is much higher."

Consolidation of Proceedings

The High Court directed that upon transfer, the Family Court at Bhachau should endeavor to hear the transferred suit alongside the pending maintenance proceedings. To ensure efficiency, the court permitted the opponent to request a common date for both matters, which the lower court should consider sympathetically.

The application was allowed, and the Family Suit was ordered to be transferred to the competent court in Bhachau. The court underscored that while virtual appearance is permissible for the husband upon request, it is subject to the discretion of the trial court, particularly when the physical presence of the parties becomes essential for the adjudication of specific stages of the suit.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2026