Must the wife's convenience be looked at while considering transfer of matrimonial matters under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.24 — Transfer of suit — Matrimonial matters — Wife's convenience — Ends of justice —

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.24 — Transfer of suit — Ends of justice —

Held: Under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the ends of justice must demand the transfer of a suit, which is the cardinal principle for exercise of that power. Courts take into consideration the circumstances of both parties. (¶4)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.24 — Matrimonial matters — Wife's convenience —

Held further: In matrimonial matters the Courts take into consideration the economic soundness of both parties, their social strata and how each seeks sustenance, and generally it is the wife's convenience that must be looked at in considering transfer. (¶4)

Transfer of Original Suit — Family Court, Etah to Family Court, Mathura — Appeal allowed —

On facts, held: Transfer of the husband's suit from Etah to Mathura is just and proper, since the wife has no source of income and is dependent on her parents. The High Court order is set aside and the appeal allowed. (¶3, 5, 6)

Must the wife's convenience be looked at while considering transfer of matrimonial matters under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Yes. In matrimonial matters it is well-settled that the wife's convenience, generally, is what must be looked at in considering transfer; here the wife, with no source of income and residing with her parents in Mathura, was not in a position to travel to Etah, so the suit was ordered to move to Mathura. [¶3, ¶4, ¶5]

Must the ends of justice demand the transfer of a suit under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

Yes. Section 24 calls for the ends of justice to demand the transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding; in matrimonial matters the Courts take into consideration economic soundness, social strata and livelihood. [¶4]

“Respondent No.2 had filed Original Suit No.23 of 2018 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the appellant at Etah. The appellant had also filed certain cases against the respondent no.2 at different courts in Mathura and the respondent no.2 had also filed an FIR against the appellant at Etah. The case put forth by the appellant before the High Court is that she being a lady is not in a position to travel all the way from Mathura to Etah in order to prosecute the case filed by the respondent no. 2 at Etah. It is further contended that the appellant has no source of income and she is residing with her parents in Mathura and she is financially and emotionally dependent on them and that she is surviving on the mercy of her parents. It is also alleged that she was threatened by the respondent no.2 and his brother while she was returning from Etah to Mathura after appearing before the Court on 19.02.2018. No doubt, the said allegation was denied by the respondent no.2.”

“It is well-settled that in matrimonial matters generally, it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering the transfer. In N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (Civil Appeal No.4894 of 2022, disposed of on 18.07.2022), it was held as under: “9. 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 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 and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.””

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is just and proper to transfer the case filed by respondent no.2 from Etah to Mathura.”

“Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court impugned herein is set aside. We direct the transfer of Original Suit No.23 of 2018 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah, Uttar Pradesh to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh forthwith. The Principal Judge, Family, Court, Etah, shall send the case record to the transferee court promptly and without any delay.”