#CPC Section 24

The Karnataka High Court ordered transfer of a divorce petition to Bellary where the wife and two minor children reside, holding that the welfare and daily custodial needs of children outweigh the respondent’s convenience in Bangalore. This reinforces that child-centric interests are decisive under Section 24, not merely procedural or economic factors, setting a clear precedent for family courts handling interstate matrimonial disputes.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that parties in family disputes may appear and file documents electronically via video conferencing under CPC Section 24, removing geographic and mobility barriers to justice. This sets a binding precedent for Family Courts across the state to accommodate vulnerable litigants without compromising procedural integrity or confidentiality.

Rajasthan High Court reaffirms that in matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, the wife’s convenience-especially when caring for a minor child-takes precedence over the husband’s hardship. The ruling mandates transfer of proceedings to the wife’s residence where logistical challenges and childcare obligations exist, setting a precedent for prioritizing caregiver burden in family law disputes.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court transferred a divorce petition from Kangra to Kullu under CPC Section 24, holding that the wife’s severe financial constraints, 178km distance from her support network, and uncontroverted allegations of domestic abuse outweigh territorial jurisdiction. This ruling affirms that access to justice in matrimonial disputes must prioritize the petitioner’s safety and practical well-being, setting a precedent for gender-sensitive forum selection in family law.

Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that in matrimonial transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, the wife's convenience takes precedence, especially when parallel proceedings exist in her jurisdiction. The Court permitted virtual participation to ensure access to justice, balancing the husband's hardship against the wife's right to fair proceedings.

MP High Court rejects transfer petition under Section 24 CPC, holding that travel inconvenience alone, without documented evidence of harassment or threat, cannot justify shifting Hindu Marriage Act proceedings. The ruling reinforces that transfer petitions must demonstrate substantive grounds beyond logistical difficulties to succeed.

Bombay High Court rules that in transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, the wife’s logistical hardship-including travel distance, lack of escort, and childcare responsibilities-must outweigh the husband’s choice of forum. The judgment reinforces that matrimonial disputes demand a gender-sensitive approach, prioritizing the wife’s safety and practical constraints over procedural parity.

Karnataka High Court rules that Civil Revision Petitions under Section 115 CPC are maintainable against transfer orders under Section 24 CPC, even where parties attempt to evade court timelines through concealment or unsubstantiated bias allegations. The court directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months, reinforcing judicial efficiency over procedural delays.