The Madras High Court has affirmed that the convenience of a party, particularly in matrimonial disputes, can justify the transfer of proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, provided no prejudice is caused to the other side. This ruling reinforces the principle that access to justice must account for practical hardships faced by litigants.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a wife residing in Salem, Tamil Nadu, sought transfer of a matrimonial proceeding initiated by her husband in the Family Court, Chengalpattu. The marriage was solemnized on 14 March 2022. The husband filed F.C.H.M.O.P. No.292 of 2025 seeking dissolution of marriage. The wife, who has been residing in Salem since the marriage, faces significant hardship in attending proceedings nearly 300 kilometers away.
Procedural History
- The husband filed the matrimonial petition in Chengalpattu Family Court.
- The wife filed Tr.C.M.P. No.1087 of 2025 under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer to Salem.
- Simultaneously, she filed C.M.P. No.24608 of 2025 seeking stay of proceedings pending transfer.
- The respondent-husband did not oppose the transfer.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought withdrawal of the case from Chengalpattu and its transfer to the Family Court, Salem, on grounds of convenience, hardship, and equitable access to justice. She also sought a stay on further proceedings in Chengalpattu until transfer was ordered.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits transfer of a matrimonial proceeding solely on the ground of the petitioner’s residence and convenience, even in the absence of allegations of bias or procedural irregularity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. R. Selvabharathi, relied on the principle that Section 24 CPC empowers courts to transfer cases for the ends of justice, including to prevent undue hardship. He cited Smt. S. Meenakshi v. S. Rajendran to argue that convenience of the wife, particularly in matrimonial matters, is a legitimate factor under the equitable jurisdiction of the court. He emphasized that the respondent had not raised any objection, indicating no prejudice.
For the Respondent
The respondent, represented by Ms. U. Ulaga Ilakkiya, did not contest the transfer. No counter-arguments were formally presented, leaving the court to assess the petition on its merits and the statutory framework.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Section 24 CPC, which permits transfer when it is necessary for the ends of justice. It noted that while the provision does not require proof of bias or malafide, it does require a demonstrable reason for transfer. The Court held that the petitioner’s residence in Salem, coupled with the absence of objection from the respondent, satisfied the threshold for transfer.
"Having regard to the residence of the petitioner at Salem, and considering that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, this Court is satisfied that the transfer sought is justified."
The Court rejected the notion that transfer requires a showing of procedural unfairness or institutional bias. Instead, it affirmed that convenience and equitable access are integral to the spirit of Section 24 CPC, especially in sensitive family matters where prolonged travel may deter participation. The Court further directed the Chengalpattu court to transmit records within three weeks and instructed the Salem court to decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observations in this order.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Madras High Court held that Section 24 CPC authorizes transfer of matrimonial proceedings based on the petitioner’s residence and convenience, provided no prejudice is shown to the respondent. The case was transferred to the Family Court, Salem, and the stay petition was closed as infructuous.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Convenience Can Justify Transfer Without Proving Bias
- Practitioners may now confidently invoke Section 24 CPC in matrimonial cases where one party faces significant travel hardship, even without allegations of forum shopping or judicial partiality.
- The absence of objection from the opposing party strengthens the case for transfer but is not strictly mandatory.
- Courts are expected to prioritize practical access to justice over rigid territorial jurisdiction in family disputes.
Transfer Does Not Prejudice Substantive Rights
- The judgment clarifies that transfer under Section 24 CPC is procedural and does not imply any pre-judgment on merits.
- The receiving court must decide the case afresh, uninfluenced by observations in the transfer order.
- This prevents parties from using transfer applications as a tactic to gain substantive advantage.
Family Courts Are Bound by Equitable Principles
- Family courts must recognize that Section 24 CPC is not merely a technical provision but a tool for substantive justice.
- Judges should proactively consider residence, health, childcare responsibilities, and economic constraints when evaluating transfer petitions.
- This ruling aligns with the broader trend of humanizing procedural law in family jurisprudence.
