In a significant ruling on the scope of transfer applications under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, held that while the convenience of the wife is an important consideration in matrimonial proceedings, it cannot be elevated into an inflexible or absolute rule requiring the automatic transfer of a case. The Court dismissed an application filed by a wife seeking the transfer of a divorce proceeding from the Family Court at Kanpur Nagar to the Family Court at Hamirpur, clarifying that discretionary transfer powers require a cumulative assessment of circumstances affecting both parties.
Background of the Case
The applicant-wife filed the transfer application seeking the transfer of Divorce Case No. 414 of 2025, instituted by the opposite party-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur.
The applicant stated that the marriage was solemnized on February 26, 2009, according to Hindu rites and rituals, and two children were born from the wedlock: a daughter born on October 19, 2010, and a son born on November 19, 2016. Due to subsequent matrimonial discord, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home with her minor son. She claimed to be residing at her parental home in Mohalla Ramedi, Police Station Kotwali, District Hamirpur.
The applicant further pointed out that she had instituted two proceedings at Hamirpur arising out of the matrimonial dispute: Case No. 316 of 2025 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), F.T.C. II/(Crime Against Women), Hamirpur, and Case No. 110 of 2025 under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur. She stated that while these cases were pending, the opposite party instituted the divorce petition on false and fictitious grounds at Kanpur Nagar. Pleadings were also made that Hamirpur and Kanpur Nagar are situated at a distance of more than 60 kilometres, which would cause her considerable inconvenience.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is a relevant and ordinarily entitled consideration when determining a transfer plea. It was argued that the applicant is residing at Hamirpur, where proceedings arising from the matrimonial dispute are already pending, and no circumstance justified compelling her to defend the divorce proceedings at Kanpur Nagar. The applicant also alleged apprehension of harm at the hands of the opposite party and his family members if she attended the court at Kanpur Nagar.
Opposing the plea, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party relied upon the counter affidavit to submit that the applicant does not reside at Hamirpur, but at Pukhrayan in District Kanpur Dehat—an adjoining district to Kanpur Nagar—as disclosed by the applicant herself in the description of parties in the transfer application. It was further argued that the mere pendency of proceedings at Hamirpur does not constitute sufficient ground to transfer the divorce suit. Counsel also submitted that the opposite party faces a threat to his life and personal security at Hamirpur, regarding which applications had already been submitted to the police authorities.
Legal Analysis and Precedents
Examining the ambit of Section 24 CPC, the Court noted that the jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and must be exercised judicially upon a careful assessment of the facts to ensure neither party suffers prejudice or hardship that impairs fair and effective conduct of proceedings.
On the question of the wife’s convenience, the Court observed:
“In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is undoubtedly a relevant and significant consideration, particularly where she is required to travel to a distant place, has limited means, is required to look after minor children, or is otherwise placed in circumstances which make attendance at the existing forum materially difficult. At the same time, such convenience cannot be elevated into an absolute or inflexible rule that a matrimonial proceeding must invariably be transferred to the place where the wife resides or where proceedings instituted by her are pending. The discretion under Section 24 CPC necessarily requires consideration of the circumstances affecting both parties.”
The Court referred to Sadhna Singh Vs. Mrityunjay Singh, emphasizing that the wife’s convenience must be evaluated along with other relevant factors, including the place of residence, economic and social circumstances, accessibility of the court, and available transport. The Court observed that Section 24 CPC cannot be exercised mechanically merely because the wife resides at a different location.
Referring to Anjana Rana Vs. Navin Singh, the Court reiterated that while the presence of connected proceedings at the proposed forum lends weight to a transfer prayer, their mere pendency does not confer an automatic right of transfer. Travel distance, the Court stated, must also be assessed in terms of accessibility and practical conditions.
Addressing the safety plea, the Court cited Arshad Hussain v. Nazia Parveen, noting that apprehension of harm or prejudice must rest upon a real and reasonable foundation.
Applying these principles, the High Court observed that the applicant’s place of residence was itself disputed, with her own application listing an address in Kanpur Dehat. Even assuming her residence at Hamirpur, the Court held that the distance of over 60 kilometres was not shown to cause severe hardship, nor was there material demonstrating an absence of public transport, a mandate for frequent personal appearances, or an inability to obtain legal representation. Regarding safety concerns, the Court found competing assertions from both sides without substantial, verifiable foundation on record.
Court’s Decision
Highlighting the governing consideration, the Court ruled:
“The mere fact that the applicant is the wife, that proceedings arising out of the matrimonial dispute are pending at Hamirpur, or that attendance at the existing forum involves travel, cannot, in the circumstances of the present case, by themselves furnish sufficient ground for exercise of the discretionary power under Section 24 CPC.”
Finding no sufficient grounds to warrant transfer, the High Court dismissed the application. The Court directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, to proceed with the divorce petition expeditiously in accordance with law, avoiding unnecessary adjournments. The Court clarified that its observations were strictly confined to the Section 24 CPC application and did not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the matrimonial dispute.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt. Taruni Tripathi Versus Duresh Tripathi
Case No.: Transfer Application (Civil) No. – 601 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Date: September 14, 2026
