The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed a critical principle in matrimonial litigation: when a husband initiates proceedings for restoration of conjugal rights, the wife’s practical ability to participate must dictate forum selection. This ruling reinforces judicial recognition of gendered burdens in family law and sets a clear standard for transfer applications under Section 24 of the CPC.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a 30-year-old woman residing with her elderly parents in Pali, Rajasthan, is the respondent in a Civil Misc. Case No. 106/2025 filed by her husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restoration of conjugal rights. The case is pending before the Family Court in Sujangarh, Churu, approximately 330 kilometers from her residence.
Procedural History
- The husband filed the Section 9 petition in Sujangarh, Churu, despite the wife’s residence being in Pali.
- The wife, who has no independent source of income, filed a transfer application under Section 24 of the CPC seeking relocation of the case to Pali.
- The respondent husband did not appear or file any counter-affidavit despite service.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought transfer of the matrimonial proceeding to the Family Court in Pali, citing severe financial hardship, physical strain from long-distance travel, and absence of any family support to accompany her to hearings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 24 of the CPC permits transfer of a matrimonial case initiated by the husband to the wife’s place of residence when her ability to attend proceedings is materially compromised by distance and economic vulnerability.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel relied on Vinisha Jitesh Tolani @ Manmeet Laghmani v. Jitesh Kishore Tolani and Smt. Gayatri Devi v. Shri Raghuveer Singh to argue that courts must prioritize the wife’s convenience in matrimonial disputes. He emphasized that the wife’s lack of income, age of her parents, and absence of any attendant rendered travel to Sujangarh not merely inconvenient but practically impossible.
For the Respondent
No appearance or submission was made by the respondent or his counsel.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolving jurisprudence on gender-sensitive adjudication in family matters. It noted that Section 24 CPC empowers courts to transfer cases in the interest of justice, particularly where one party faces disproportionate hardship. The Court cited Vinisha Jitesh Tolani with approval, observing that "in matrimonial disputes instituted by the husband against the wife, the Court must consider the convenience of the wife in contesting the proceedings." This principle, the Court held, is not discretionary but rooted in the constitutional imperative of equal access to justice under Article 14 and Article 21.
"Matrimonial matters ought to be adjudicated at a forum proximate to the wife's residence to minimize undue hardship."
The Court further relied on its own coordinate bench’s decision in Smt. Gayatri Devi, reinforcing that judicial economy and procedural fairness demand that the burden of travel not fall disproportionately on women who are often economically dependent. The absence of any opposition from the husband was treated as acquiescence to the petitioner’s factual assertions.
The Court also directed consolidation of all pending matrimonial matters between the parties and mandated simultaneous hearing to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, underscoring the need for holistic resolution.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that Section 24 CPC authorizes transfer of matrimonial proceedings to the wife’s place of residence when she faces severe hardship in attending hearings. The case was transferred to the Family Court, Pali, with directions for consolidated disposal and reconciliation efforts.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Convenience of the Wife Is a Ground of Right, Not Discretion
- Practitioners must now treat the wife’s residence as the prima facie forum for Section 9 HMA petitions unless the husband demonstrates compelling countervailing reasons.
- Affidavits in transfer applications must detail financial constraints, health conditions, caregiving responsibilities, and lack of support systems.
Transfer Applications Under Section 24 CPC Are Not Merely Procedural
- Courts must conduct a substantive inquiry into the impact of venue on access to justice, not just technical compliance.
- Absence of opposition does not equate to waiver of rights; courts must independently assess fairness.
Consolidation of Related Proceedings Is Mandatory
- All pending matrimonial matters between the same parties - whether for restitution, divorce, maintenance, or custody - must be identified and listed for simultaneous hearing.
- Family Courts are now under a duty to facilitate reconciliation before adjudication, per the Court’s directive.
