Gujarat High Court Allows Transfer of Divorce Suit from Dhoraji to Junagadh on Grounds of Wife's Convenience and Safety. Wife's Convenience and Safety Outweigh Husband's Choice of Forum Under Section 24 CPC.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 101
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant wife filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of Family Suit No. 46 of 2025 from the Family Court at Dhoraji to a competent court at Junagadh. The parties married on 30.11.2006 at Dhoraji and have a 13-year-old daughter. They moved to the UK in 2014 but later separated due to marital disputes. The wife returned to her matrimonial home at Junagadh, but her in-laws denied shelter. She filed an FIR under Section 498A IPC in 2022 at Mahila Police Station, Junagadh, and a charge-sheet was filed on 23.11.2022. She also filed a domestic violence case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Cr.M.A. No. 73 of 2022) and a maintenance application under Section 144(3) BNSS, where interim maintenance of Rs.18,000 per month was awarded. The husband filed a divorce suit under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Dhoraji. The wife sought transfer on grounds that she resides at Junagadh, Dhoraji is 150 km away, she has safety concerns, and multiple cases are pending at Junagadh. The husband refused service of notice despite being present at Dhoraji, showing obstructive conduct. The court held that the balance of convenience is in favour of the wife, and transferred the suit to the Family Court at Junagadh, directing both parties to appear on 28.04.2026.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Suit - Section 24 CPC - Convenience of Wife - The wife sought transfer of divorce suit filed by husband from Dhoraji to Junagadh, citing her residence at Junagadh, safety concerns, and multiple pending litigations at Junagadh. The husband refused service of notice despite being present at Dhoraji, indicating obstructive conduct. Held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the wife, and the suit is transferred to the Family Court at Junagadh (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Family Suit No. 46 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Dhoraji should be transferred to a competent court at Junagadh for the convenience of the wife and in the interest of justice.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The application is allowed. Family Suit No. 46 of 2025 pending before the Family Court at Dhoraji is transferred to the Family Court at Junagadh. Both parties are directed to appear before the Family Court at Junagadh on 28.04.2026.

Law Points

  • Transfer of proceedings under Section 24 CPC
  • convenience of wife
  • conduct of husband
  • refusal of service
  • multiple litigations at wife's place
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 1035

R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR TRANSFER) NO. 2335 of 2025

2026-03-27

Devan M. Desai

2026:GUJHC:23693

Ms. Lipee D. Dave for the applicant

Kristin, w/o Kevin Ramani d/o Shirishkumar Gopalbhai Bhalodia

Kevin Nitinbhai Ramani

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil transfer application under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of divorce suit from Family Court at Dhoraji to competent court at Junagadh.

Remedy Sought

Transfer of Family Suit No. 46 of 2025 from Family Court at Dhoraji to competent court at Junagadh.

Filing Reason

Wife's convenience, safety concerns, distance of 150 km, multiple pending litigations at Junagadh, and husband's obstructive conduct.

Previous Decisions

Interim maintenance of Rs.18,000 per month awarded in maintenance application under Section 144(3) BNSS.

Issues

Whether the divorce suit should be transferred from Dhoraji to Junagadh for the convenience of the wife.

Submissions/Arguments

Applicant wife submits she resides at Junagadh, Dhoraji is 150 km away, she has safety concerns, and multiple cases are pending at Junagadh. Respondent husband refused service of notice despite being present at Dhoraji, indicating obstructive conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The balance of convenience lies in favour of the wife, who resides at Junagadh, has safety concerns, and has multiple litigations pending at Junagadh. The husband's conduct in refusing service despite being present at Dhoraji shows his obstructive attitude. Hence, the suit is transferred under Section 24 CPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Application is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for the transfer of Family Suit No. 46 of 2025 pending before the learned Family Court at Dhoraji to the competent Court at Junagadh. The applicant – wife filed a Maintenance Application under Section 144(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 wherein, interim maintenance was awarded at Rs.18,000/- per month. The respondent – husband has filed a suit under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of dissolution of the marriage before the learned Family Court at Dhoraji being Family Suit No. 46 of 2025. The balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant – wife. Hence, the present Application is allowed.

Procedural History

The applicant wife filed a transfer application under Section 24 CPC on an unspecified date. The respondent husband was served but did not appear. The court heard the applicant's advocate and passed judgment on 27.03.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 24
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 498A
  • Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Section 12
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 144(3)
  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 13A
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Central Excise Duty Demand on Scrap Generated During Car Manufacturing. Generation of scrap during manufacturing process is not a separate taxable event under Central Excise Act, 1944.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Customs Public Notice on IGM Amendment. Public Notice Prohibiting Amendment of Consignee Name After Bill of Entry Filed Held Reasonable and Not Ultra Vires the Customs Act, 1962.