Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"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... Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer." The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a ruling dated September 3, 2026, held that while the convenience of the wife remains a paramount consideration in matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the use of virtual conferencing can effectively balance the hardships faced by both parties.

Justice Purushottam Kumar Chintalapudi observed that modern procedural rules now permit virtual appearances, which can obviate the need for physical presence in routine proceedings.

The petitioner, a wife residing in Guntur, sought the transfer of a divorce petition (H.M.O.P. No. 28 of 2026) filed by her husband from the court at Nandyal to the Family Court at Guntur. She contended that she is dependent on her parents and that travelling approximately 282 kilometres for every court date would be arduous. The respondent-husband opposed the transfer, alleging that the petitioner is gainfully employed in Chennai and that the transfer would cause him undue hardship given that he supports his aged parents.

The court was primarily tasked with determining whether the circumstances necessitated the transfer of the matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, keeping in view the competing claims of convenience of both spouses. Additionally, the court examined the extent to which modern technology, specifically video conferencing, can be employed to mitigate the logistical burdens on parties in litigation.

Convenience of the Wife as a Primary Factor

The court reiterated that in matrimonial disputes, the socio-economic reality often dictates that the wife’s convenience should be a primary factor in transfer petitions. Referencing the Supreme Court's decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the bench emphasized that courts must evaluate the economic soundness, social strata, and the protective umbrella under which the parties seek their livelihood.

Balancing Hardship Through Technology

Addressing the respondent's argument that he would face significant hardship if forced to travel from Nandyal to Guntur, the court noted that technological advancements provide a remedy. Relying on Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nigam and the Andhra Pradesh Electronic Communication and Video Conferencing Rules, 2026, the court held that virtual appearance is a viable alternative to physical presence in family matters, except where physical attendance is strictly mandatory.

"The aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court makes it clear that the convenience of the wife is one of the relevant considerations in matrimonial transfer matters."

Dispensing with Personal Appearance

The court underscored that it is not necessary for parties to be physically present at every stage of the litigation. It observed that the transferee court is empowered to permit appearance through video conferencing, especially for routine adjournments or where evidence can be recorded through virtual means. This approach ensures that the legal process does not become an instrument of undue harassment for either party.

"It will be open to the transferee court to conduct the proceedings or record evidence of the witnesses who are unable to appear in court by way of videoconferencing."

Allowing the transfer petition, the High Court ordered the withdrawal of H.M.O.P. No. 28 of 2026 from the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, and its transfer to the Family Court, Guntur. To balance the interests of the respondent, the court directed the Family Court, Guntur, not to insist on the respondent’s physical presence for every hearing, provided he is represented by counsel. The court further directed that virtual appearance should be utilized for mediation, reconciliation, or other necessary purposes as deemed fit by the transferee court.

The ruling reinforces the established legal position that a wife’s convenience is a cardinal factor in matrimonial transfer petitions. By mandating the utilization of virtual conferencing, the court has provided a balanced framework that upholds the principles of justice while minimizing logistical barriers for all litigants involved.

Date of Decision: 03 September 2026