Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Gujarat considered an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the wife seeking transfer of a divorce petition pending before the Family Court, Vadodara to the Family Court, Godhra. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10 March 2019, and a son was born on 29 May 2021. Marital discord led to separation. The husband filed H.M.P. No. 588 of 2025 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in Vadodara. The wife, residing with her parents in Godhra, sought transfer on the grounds that her father suffered from chronic venous insufficiency requiring surgery, she had to care for her minor son, and the distance between Godhra and Vadodara was approximately 80 kilometers. The husband opposed the transfer, contending that a divorce deed had been executed, maintenance was paid, and the wife had a brother who could assist with the father's care. He also pointed out that an earlier joint petition under Section 13(B) had been rejected after the wife withdrew consent. The court noted that the only reasons advanced were the father’s illness and child care, and that the applicant had not provided any other compelling ground. Crucially, it observed that all Family Courts in Gujarat are equipped with video conferencing facilities. Weighing these factors, the court held that no case was made out to exercise discretion under Section 24 CPC. The application was rejected, but the wife was permitted to appear and contest through video conferencing. The parties’ contentions on merits were left open, and no costs were ordered. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Transfer of Suit - Section 24 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 24 - Applicant-wife sought transfer of divorce petition from Vadodara to Godhra citing father's chronic venous insufficiency and care of minor child, distance 80 km. Court noted husband's argument of brother's availability and video conferencing facility in all Family Courts. Held that no cogent grounds made out to exercise discretionary power; application rejected; wife permitted to appear via video conferencing; contentions left open. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should transfer H.M.P. No. 588 of 2025 from Family Court, Vadodara to Family Court, Godhra under Section 24 CPC on grounds of father’s illness and distance.
Final Decision
Application rejected; applicant permitted to appear via video conferencing; no order as to costs; rule discharged.
Law Points
- Transfer under Section 24 CPC requires cogent grounds
- distance and family illness alone insufficient
- availability of video conferencing is a relevant factor
- discretion not exercised when grounds not compelling
