Section 24 CPC | Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings Is Convenience Of Wife: Orissa 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, appeal or other proceeding. 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 behavioral pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life," Orissa High Court.

Orissa High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 17, 2026, held that while considering a petition for the transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, the court must balance the comparative hardship of parties while keeping the wife's convenience as a primary factor. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra observed that the socioeconomic paradigm in India dictates that the wife’s convenience is a paramount consideration, though it must be weighed against the specific facts of each case.

The petitioner-wife sought the transfer of a divorce proceeding filed by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Family Court at Bhadrak to the Family Court at Balasore. The petitioner, a destitute woman living with her aged parents and a minor son, argued that she lacked independent income and that the husband had already been appearing in other legal proceedings at Balasore. The husband opposed the transfer, citing the distance and alleging that the wife was intentionally delaying the litigation.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner-wife had established sufficient and bona fide hardship to justify the transfer of the divorce petition. The court was also called upon to determine whether such hardship could be mitigated through alternative safeguards, such as virtual appearance, rather than necessitating a formal transfer of the proceedings.

Convenience of the Wife as Primary Factor

The court underscored that the power under Section 24 of the CPC must be exercised when the ends of justice demand it. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, the court reaffirmed that the economic status, social strata, and support systems of the parties are crucial. Given that the petitioner is currently dependent on her father and caring for a minor child, the court found her plea for transfer to be both reasonable and necessary.

Court Balances Comparative Hardship

The bench rejected the husband's reliance on previous coordinate bench orders, noting that transfer decisions are highly fact-specific. In the present case, the court noted that because the husband is already contesting a maintenance proceeding at Balasore, transferring the divorce petition would not only alleviate the wife's hardship but also enable both proceedings to be heard simultaneously, thereby preventing conflicting orders and saving judicial time.

No Absolute Right to Physical Presence

Addressing the husband's concerns regarding the travel distance to Balasore, the court observed that modern procedural mechanisms can bridge such gaps. The court directed the Family Court at Balasore to explore the use of video conferencing facilities as per the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020.

Bold Pull-Quote on Virtual Appearance

"The learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore is requested to explore the facilities of Video Conferencing available in the said Court and permit the parties to appear before him through virtual mode, following due procedure... if so prayed by any of the parties."

Directions for Expedited Resolution

The court directed the record of the divorce petition to be transferred from Bhadrak to Balasore within one week. It further ordered that the Family Court at Balasore should tag the divorce proceeding with the existing maintenance case and list them on the same dates to ensure procedural efficiency. The parties were strictly cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments, with the court expressing an expectation that the proceedings conclude by March 2027.

The court allowed the transfer petition, prioritizing the petitioner’s convenience while providing the respondent with the option of virtual appearance to mitigate his own travel difficulties. This ruling reaffirms the judicial commitment to ensuring that matrimonial litigation does not become an instrument of undue harassment for financially dependent parties.

Date of Decision: 17 September 2026