Wife's Convenience No Longer Paramount In Transfer Petitions

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Deepak Khot of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya (2026), held that the convenience of the wife is no longer the paramount consideration for deciding transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes. The Court observed that viable modern alternatives, including video conferencing facilities and compensation of travel expenses, adequately address concerns of inconvenience without necessitating a transfer of proceedings. 

What was the Background of Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya (2026)? 

• The wife filed a petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking the transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights case filed by her husband before the Family Court of Narsinghpur. 
• The counsel for the wife contended that the distance between Harda and Narsinghpur exceeded 300 kilometres, making travel difficult and unsafe for her. 
• The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments and concluded that transfer petitions should not be routinely allowed merely on the ground of inconvenience to the wife. 
• Notably, the wife herself had filed two FIRs against the husband in Narsinghpur and had previously travelled there in connection with those proceedings, which the Court considered relevant to its assessment. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench observed that the parties are not required to appear at every hearing, and that counsels may represent them at most stages of the proceedings. 
• The Court noted that the personal presence of parties is generally required only at the stage of conciliation and evidence, and that modern facilities such as video conferencing provide an effective alternative to physical transfer of proceedings. 
• The Court directed that the applicant may appear before the Family Court, District Narsinghpur through video conferencing, and that for her examination, travel, lodging, and boarding expenses would be borne by the respondent. 
• The Family Court, Narsinghpur was directed to fix a date for examination of the applicant and accordingly direct the respondent to make payment of such expenses. 
• The bench emphasized that the availability of technology and cost-compensation mechanisms renders routine transfers in matrimonial disputes unnecessary and unwarranted. 

What is Section 24 of CPC?  

• This Section deals with the general power of transfer and withdrawal.   
• Who can transfer: High Court or District Court, either on application by a party or suo motu (on its own motion). 
• What can be transferred: Any suit, appeal, or other proceeding (including execution proceedings) at any stage. 
• Powers available: 
  • Transfer a pending case to any competent subordinate court. 
  • Withdraw a case from a subordinate court and either try it themselves, transfer it to another subordinate court, or retransfer it to the original court. 
• After transfer: The receiving court may either retry the case from scratch or continue from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. 
• Subordination clarification: Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges are deemed subordinate to the District Court for this purpose. 
• Small Causes Court cases: A court trying a transferred Small Causes suit is deemed to be a Court of Small Causes for that suit's purposes. 
• Jurisdiction exception: A case may even be transferred from a court that has no jurisdiction to try it. 
• Notice requirement: Notice must be given to parties and they must be heard if they wish, except when the court acts suo motu.