#Matrimonial Proceedings

The Delhi HC ruled that "last resided together" under Section 19(iii) HMA means the final joint residence - a four-year Gurugram stay displacing an earlier 18-month Delhi residence. The divorce petition was rightly returned for want of jurisdiction, and the appeal dismissed on maintainability (wrong respondent) and merits.

The Bombay HC transferred a matrimonial proceeding from Udgir to Parbhani to prevent multiplicity of cases and alleviate a 150km travel burden on an applicant with no income. This ruling reinforces that convenience and judicial economy outweigh territorial formalities when a party is economically vulnerable and already embroiled in related litigation in the requested forum.

MP High Court transfers divorce proceedings to the wife’s jurisdiction, prioritizing the minor child’s welfare and the wife’s financial dependence on her parents over the husband’s procedural objections. The ruling reaffirms that jurisdictional transfers under Section 24 CPC must account for the child’s custody and the caregiver’s hardship, not just spousal convenience.

Andhra Pradesh High Court reinforces that matrimonial reconciliation under the Family Courts Act requires in-person attendance, citing statutory confidentiality and the sanctity of personal interaction. Video conferencing may only be permitted post-failure of settlement, ensuring procedural integrity in sensitive family disputes.

Orissa High Court rules that a deserted wife’s financial constraints and distance from court warrant transferring matrimonial proceedings to the nearest forum, ensuring access to justice. The court permitted virtual appearances and mandated timely disposal while recognizing the wife’s maintenance case under BNSS as an additional factor.

The Orissa High Court has ruled that when a wife faces credible threats of violence and is the primary caregiver to an infant while economically dependent on her parents, her convenience must override procedural convenience of the original forum. This sets a critical precedent for family courts to prioritize safety and childcare over territorial jurisdiction in transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC, empowering vulnerable women to seek justice without sacrificing their physical or emotional well-being.

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.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that transfer of Hindu Marriage Act proceedings is warranted when custody of young children rests with the mother and she lacks means to litigate remotely.

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that in matrimonial cases, transfer under Section 24 CPC must prioritize the wife's convenience, especially when she is vulnerable and residing separately with a child.

Madras High Court transfers matrimonial case to Chennai Family Court citing wife's financial hardship and travel burden, reinforcing convenience as key under Section 24 CPC.

Madras High Court transfers matrimonial case to Chennai where petitioner, a nursing mother, resides, emphasizing access to justice and practical hardship over territorial formalities.

Madras High Court allows transfer of matrimonial case from Chengalpattu to Salem under Section 24 CPC, emphasizing convenience and absence of prejudice to respondent.

Bombay High Court transfers custody petition to mother's residence for her convenience and child's welfare, affirming Section 24 CPC powers in matrimonial disputes.