The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that in matrimonial transfer applications under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the convenience of the wife must be the primary consideration, especially where socio-economic realities render travel burdensome. This ruling reinforces a long-standing principle in Indian family jurisprudence that procedural fairness must accommodate the practical vulnerabilities of spouses in domestic disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Diksha Rane, wife of the respondent Bharat Navnath Deshmukh, filed a miscellaneous civil application seeking transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights petition filed by the husband before the 5th Chief Judicial Magistrate (C.J.S.D.), Kalyan, to the C.J.S.D., Palghar. The petition, numbered Marriage Petition No. 775 of 2024, was pending with the respondent’s written statement yet to be filed as of 24.03.2025.
Key Facts
- The applicant resides in Palghar with her parents and her three-year-old son
- The respondent resides in Kalyan, approximately 82 kilometers from Palghar
- Road travel between Palghar and Kalyan takes approximately 2 hours and 53 minutes
- Palghar lies outside the Western Suburbs of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (M.M.R.), while Kalyan is in the Central M.M.R. zone
- The applicant has no male family member to accompany her to court proceedings in Kalyan
- The applicant is the primary caregiver for her minor child
- No appearance was made by the respondent despite service being confirmed
Procedural History
- 2024: Marriage Petition No. 775 of 2024 filed by respondent before 5th C.J.S.D., Kalyan
- 24.03.2025: Status of case recorded - written statement yet to be filed
- 2025: Applicant filed Misc. Civil Application (ST) No. 37192/2025 seeking transfer to C.J.S.D., Palghar
- 26.03.2026: Hearing conducted; respondent did not appear despite service
Relief Sought
The applicant sought transfer of the restitution petition from the 5th C.J.S.D., Kalyan, to the C.J.S.D., Palghar, on grounds of extreme inconvenience, lack of male escort, and the welfare of her minor child.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the convenience of the wife, particularly in the context of socio-economic vulnerability and logistical hardship, justifies transfer of a matrimonial proceeding under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Arguments Presented
For the Applicant
The applicant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199), which held that in matrimonial matters, the wife’s convenience must be the primary consideration under Section 24 CPC. She submitted that the 82-kilometer distance, nearly three-hour round-trip, and absence of any male companion rendered her attendance at Kalyan court proceedings unduly burdensome. She emphasized that the petition was at an early stage, making transfer feasible without prejudice to either party.
For the Respondent
No appearance or submission was made by the respondent despite service being duly effected. The court noted the respondent’s absence as indicative of disinterest in contesting the application.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Supreme Court’s ruling in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, particularly Paragraph 9, which states:
"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."
The Court found that the applicant’s circumstances squarely fell within this framework. The distance, time, lack of escort, and primary caregiving responsibilities created a demonstrable hardship. The Court further noted that the proceeding was at an early stage, with no evidence of prejudice to the respondent. The respondent’s non-appearance further weakened any claim of prejudice from transfer. The Court held that justice demanded accommodation of the wife’s practical reality.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Court allowed the transfer application and directed that Marriage Petition No. 775 of 2024 pending before the 5th C.J.S.D., Kalyan, be transferred to the C.J.S.D., Palghar, within four weeks from the date of judgment. The applicant’s counsel was directed to file an affidavit confirming communication of the order to the Kalyan court within two weeks. The Registrar (Judicial-I) was directed to communicate the order via email to the Registrar of the 5th C.J.S.D., Kalyan.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Wife's Convenience Is a Determinative Factor
- Practitioners must now treat the wife’s logistical hardship - distance, travel time, childcare responsibilities, and lack of escort - as a presumptive ground for transfer under Section 24 CPC
- Courts are expected to prioritize the wife’s ability to participate meaningfully in proceedings over technical convenience to the petitioner
- Absence of male family support is now a recognized factor in assessing hardship
Early Stage Proceedings Favor Transfer
- Transfer applications are more likely to succeed when the case is at an early procedural stage, such as before written statement filing or evidence recording
- Delayed applications risk being dismissed on grounds of laches or prejudice
- Courts will weigh the stage of proceedings against the severity of hardship
Non-Appearance by Respondent Strengthens Applicant’s Case
- Respondent’s failure to appear, even after service, will be construed as acquiescence or disinterest
- Courts may treat non-appearance as a waiver of objection to transfer
- Practitioners should document service and non-appearance meticulously to support transfer applications
