The Karnataka High Court has affirmed that the convenience of the wife and the welfare of minor children are decisive factors in transferring matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In a pragmatic exercise of judicial discretion, the Court directed the transfer of a divorce petition from Bangalore to Bellary, where the petitioner and her two minor children reside, emphasizing the need to minimize disruption to the children’s education and the petitioner’s caregiving responsibilities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Hetal Milind Patange, filed Civil Petition No. 34 of 2026 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of M.C. No. 3061/2025, a divorce petition filed by her husband, Sri. Milind M P, before the Principal Judge, Ist Additional Family Court, Bangalore. The petitioner sought transfer to the Family Court, Bellary, where she and her two minor children have been residing since the breakdown of the marriage.
Key Facts
- The petitioner and respondent were married in 2013 and have two minor children, currently studying in 7th and 1st standards in Bellary
- The petitioner resides in Bellary with her 75-year-old mother, who is dependent on her
- Both parties are BE and MBA graduates and were previously employed by HP Company
- The petitioner is currently unemployed and not earning
- The respondent is employed as a Manager in a private company in Bangalore and resides with his aged parents
- The respondent filed G & W C No. 191/2025 for custody of the children, which was transferred to Bellary Family Court and re-numbered as G & W C No. 16/2025
- The petitioner filed Crl. Misc. No. 238/2025 before the Bellary Family Court seeking maintenance
- The respondent has not paid any maintenance to the children as of the date of the petition
- The distance between Bellary and Bangalore is 308 kilometers
Procedural History
- 2023: Marriage breaks down; petitioner relocates to Bellary with children
- 2025: Respondent files M.C. No. 3061/2025 for divorce in Bangalore Family Court
- 2025: Respondent files G & W C No. 191/2025 for custody in Bangalore; transferred to Bellary and re-numbered as G & W C No. 16/2025
- 2025: Petitioner files Crl. Misc. No. 238/2025 for maintenance in Bellary Family Court
- 16.06.2026: Civil Petition No. 34 of 2026 filed before Karnataka High Court seeking transfer of divorce petition to Bellary
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The petitioner argued that it is physically and emotionally burdensome for her to travel 308 kilometers with two minor children to attend court proceedings in Bangalore. She emphasized that all other pending matters - custody and maintenance - are already before the Bellary Family Court, and transferring the divorce petition would ensure uniformity, reduce litigation costs, and safeguard the children’s stability.
Respondent’s Position: The respondent acknowledged the inconvenience but requested that all matters be posted on the same date in Bangalore to minimize his travel burden. He did not contest the petitioner’s residence or the children’s schooling in Bellary.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought transfer of M.C. No. 3061/2025 from the Family Court, Bangalore, to the Family Court, Bellary, and directed that all pending matters (divorce, custody, maintenance) be heard on the same date. She also requested that the respondent be permitted to file affidavits and undergo cross-examination via video conferencing or commissioner, without mandatory physical presence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits transfer of a matrimonial proceeding to a forum more convenient for the wife and minor children, particularly when other related proceedings are already pending in that jurisdiction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Section 24 of the CPC, which empowers the High Court to transfer any suit or proceeding if it is in the interest of justice. She cited Smt. Sunita Devi v. Smt. Renuka Devi and Smt. Meena Devi v. Smt. Sunita Devi to argue that the welfare of minor children and the practical difficulties faced by the custodial parent are paramount considerations. She emphasized that the children’s education, the petitioner’s caregiving duties, and the dependency on her aged mother collectively justify transfer.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel conceded that the children reside in Bellary and that custody and maintenance matters are pending there. However, he contended that since he is employed in Bangalore and has no alternative residence, it would be more convenient for him if all matters remained in Bangalore. He requested consolidation of hearing dates rather than transfer of jurisdiction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the object of Section 24 of the CPC, which is to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done with minimal hardship to the parties. The Court noted that while convenience to both parties is relevant, the welfare of minor children and the practical realities of custodial care take precedence.
"It is not merely a question of convenience to the husband, but of the psychological and physical well-being of two minor children who are settled in school and under the sole care of their mother in Bellary."
The Court observed that the respondent had not disputed the petitioner’s residence, the children’s schooling, or the fact that two other proceedings were already pending in Bellary. It further noted that the respondent’s employment in Bangalore did not constitute an insurmountable hardship, especially since the Court was prepared to permit his participation through video conferencing or commission.
The Court held that transferring the divorce petition to Bellary would avoid multiplicity of proceedings, reduce litigation costs, and ensure that all issues concerning the family unit are adjudicated in one forum. It emphasized that the High Court’s power under Section 24 is not confined to technical jurisdictional concerns but extends to equitable and humanitarian considerations.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The Court directed the transfer of M.C. No. 3061/2025 from the Family Court, Bangalore, to the Family Court, Bellary. The Bellary Family Court was directed to post all pending matters - divorce, custody (G & W C No. 16/2025), and maintenance (Crl. Misc. No. 238/2025) - on the same date for efficiency. The Court further directed that the respondent need not be physically present unless required by the court, and may file affidavits and undergo cross-examination through video conferencing or commissioner. All interlocutory applications were closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Custodial Convenience Overrides Geographical Convenience
- Practitioners must now prioritize the custodial parent’s logistical burden and the child’s educational stability when seeking transfer under Section 24 CPC
- Courts are likely to favor transfer where children are settled in school and the non-custodial parent has alternative means of participation (e.g., video conferencing)
Consolidation of Family Matters Is a Judicial Imperative
- All proceedings concerning the same family - divorce, custody, maintenance - should be heard in the same forum to prevent conflicting orders and reduce trauma
- Lawyers should proactively seek consolidation at the earliest opportunity, even if one proceeding is filed in a different jurisdiction
Remote Participation Is Now a Recognized Norm
- Courts may permit affidavit filing and cross-examination via video conferencing or commissioner in matrimonial cases, especially where travel is burdensome
- Advocates should draft affidavits with clear instructions for remote participation and request such provisions in applications for transfer
