The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that transfer of matrimonial dispute cases from one court to another cannot be ordered solely for the convenience of the wife or any litigant, clarifying the principles governing transfer petitions under the judicial system. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati delivered the ruling while considering a petition filed by a woman seeking transfer of her pending matrimonial proceedings, including a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and other related applications, from the Family Court at Visakhapatnam to a Family Court at Vijayawada. The wife contended that she was employed and residing in Vijayawada and that prosecuting her matrimonial proceedings from a distant forum imposed hardship and inconvenience on her daily life and work commitments. She argued that her attendance at the Visakhapatnam Family Court entailed considerable personal and professional disruption, which could be alleviated if the matters were transferred to a Family Court closer to her place of residence. The husband opposed the transfer petition, contending that no sufficient grounds had been made out to warrant transfer of the cases and that the existing forum was appropriate for adjudication. He submitted that matrimonial disputes must ordinarily be tried at the court having jurisdiction by law, and that personal inconvenience alone cannot be a ground to shift the forum. The wife’s plea was filed under Section 24A of the Civil Procedure Code as well as under Section 25 of the Family Courts Act, provisions which empower courts to transfer suits or proceedings in the interest of justice. The High Court examined the legal principles applicable to transfer petitions, including established judicial precedents which underscore that transfer of cases should be exercised sparingly and only upon demonstration of compelling circumstances beyond mere personal convenience.
In its analysis, the High Court observed that matrimonial disputes, though often emotionally charged and requiring frequent court appearances, nevertheless have specified forums where such matters must be contested. The Court noted that statutory provisions envisage transfer of cases in specific situations, such as where there is risk of unfair treatment, danger to personal safety of a party, likelihood of collateral proceedings, or where convenience of witnesses is a substantial factor affecting fair trial. However, the Bench clarified that mere desire to be relieved of the burden of travel or personal inconvenience, without more, does not ordinarily constitute compelling grounds for transfer. The Court emphasised that jurisdictional limits and established forum for adjudication play an important role in ensuring orderly and predictable disposition of disputes. The High Court also underscored that transfer petitions require consideration of the interests of both parties, and that undue preference to the convenience of one party over the other would undermine the statutory framework and judicial discipline.
The Bench further observed that the wife, while highlighting inconvenience to herself, had not demonstrated any exceptional hardship or prejudice that could not be addressed by other measures, such as applying for adjournments or seeking suitable court timings to accommodate her work schedule. The Court also noted that matrimonial proceedings are generally conducted with flexibility to accommodate the schedules of parties, especially where matters of distance or employment arise, and that registrars of Family Courts are often directed to list matters in consideration of such factors where possible. In refusing to order transfer, the High Court held that the petitioner had not placed on record any fact or circumstance that would warrant exceptional relief of transfer in the interest of justice.
The Bench’s decision reflects established jurisprudence that transfer of civil and matrimonial matters must be guided by principles of fairness, convenience of all parties, risk of prejudice, and efficient judicial administration. The Court reiterated that considerations of personal convenience, without more, do not elevate to the level of compelling circumstances required for transfer petitions. By dismissing the wife’s plea for transfer on the ground that inconvenience of attendance alone is insufficient, the High Court maintained that jurisdictional courts are to be respected and that exceptions to this rule must be supported by strong and demonstrable reasons affecting the fairness of trial or safety of parties and witnesses.
The High Court therefore dismissed the transfer petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Visakhapatnam to continue the matrimonial proceedings. The ruling reaffirmed that matrimonial disputes must ordinarily be pursued in the court of competent jurisdiction unless exceptional and substantial grounds are shown, and that convenience of a litigant, standing alone, does not justify transfer of proceedings. The Court’s order thus provides clarity on the limited circumstances under which transfer applications in matrimonial cases can be entertained and underscores the need for petitioners to demonstrate compelling reasons affecting justice and fairness, beyond mere personal discomfort or logistical inconvenience.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.