The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that mere geographical inconvenience or subjective fear, without concrete evidentiary support, cannot justify the transfer of matrimonial proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This ruling underscores the necessity of substantiated grounds for forum change in family law matters, particularly where no systemic barrier or threat to safety is documented.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Tanjila, filed a petition under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of a matrimonial suit filed by her husband, Sameer, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The suit was registered as RCS A/3/2026 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur. Tanjila sought transfer of the proceedings to the Family Court at Mahidpur, District Ujjain, where she currently resides.
Key Facts
- The marriage between Tanjila and Sameer took place on 05.11.2024 at Mahidpur
- The couple separated in 2025 due to marital disputes
- Tanjila has been residing at her maternal home in Mahidpur since separation
- The distance between Mahidpur and Mandsaur is approximately 125 kilometers
- A complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was filed by Tanjila at Mahidpur on 13.10.2025
- Tanjila claims she is frightened and unable to travel to Mandsaur due to alleged unfair conduct by the respondent
- No documentary evidence was submitted to substantiate claims of threat, financial hardship, or health constraints
Procedural History
- 05.11.2024: Marriage solemnized at Mahidpur
- 2025: Marital separation occurred
- 13.10.2025: Domestic Violence complaint filed at Mahidpur
- 2026: Respondent filed petition under Section 13 HMA before Family Court, Mandsaur (RCS A/3/2026)
- March 2026: Applicant filed MCC No. 951 of 2026 before Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking transfer
Relief Sought
The applicant sought transfer of the Hindu Marriage Act proceedings from the Family Court, Mandsaur, to the Family Court, Mahidpur, on grounds of inconvenience, fear, and pendency of a domestic violence case at Mahidpur.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 24 of the CPC permits transfer of matrimonial proceedings based solely on the petitioner’s assertion of travel inconvenience and subjective fear, without corroborative evidence or demonstrated hardship.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant’s counsel contended that the 125-kilometer distance from Mahidpur to Mandsaur imposes undue hardship on the petitioner, who is financially dependent and emotionally distressed. It was argued that the pendency of a domestic violence complaint at Mahidpur creates a natural forum connection, and that requiring her to travel repeatedly to Mandsaur amounts to harassment. Reliance was placed on judicial leniency towards women in transfer petitions.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not file a written response. However, the Court noted that no counter-affidavit or evidence was presented to refute the applicant’s claims, but also emphasized that absence of rebuttal does not equate to substantiation of grounds for transfer.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal standard for transfer under Section 24 of the CPC, emphasizing that transfer is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only when substantial grounds are established. The Court cited Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197, where the Supreme Court observed that transfer petitions by women have become routine and are often filed to exploit judicial leniency. The Apex Court held that mere assertion of inconvenience, without evidence of financial incapacity, health issues, or lack of support systems, is insufficient.
"Except for stating that her health is not good, no particulars are given. On the ground that she is not able to come to Delhi to attend the court on a particular date, she can always apply for exemption and her application will undoubtedly be considered on its merit. Hence, no ground for transfer has been made out."
The Court further relied on Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma (2005) 11 SCC 535, where the Supreme Court rejected a transfer petition despite claims of unemployment and dependence, directing instead that travel expenses be reimbursed by the respondent. The Court held that gender alone does not entitle a litigant to forum change.
The Court found that while the domestic violence complaint filed at Mahidpur is a relevant fact, it does not automatically confer jurisdiction over the matrimonial suit. The applicant failed to produce any medical reports, financial statements, or affidavits from family members to substantiate her claims of inability to travel. The assertion of fear, without any police report, protection order, or threat documentation, was deemed speculative.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that no substantial ground for transfer under Section 24 of the CPC was made out. However, the applicant is at liberty to file an application for appearance through video conferencing, and the Family Court at Mandsaur is directed to consider such applications sympathetically and in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Inconvenience Alone Is Not a Ground for Transfer
- Practitioners must now demonstrate concrete hardship - such as medical disability, financial destitution, or lack of childcare support - with documentary evidence
- Assertions of fear or emotional distress without corroboration will be treated as insufficient
- Distance alone, even if substantial, does not justify transfer unless coupled with verifiable impediments
Video Conferencing Is a Viable Alternative
- Courts are expected to permit virtual appearances in matrimonial matters where travel is genuinely burdensome
- Applications for video conferencing must be filed promptly and should specify technical capacity and privacy safeguards
- Failure to seek this remedy before filing a transfer petition may be viewed as an abuse of process
Domestic Violence Complaints Do Not Automatically Shift Jurisdiction
- A pending DV case in one jurisdiction does not confer exclusive jurisdiction over a concurrent HMA petition
- Courts must assess the nexus between the DV complaint and the matrimonial suit on a case-by-case basis
- Parallel proceedings may be coordinated, but not merged or transferred solely on the basis of pendency
