Karnataka HC: Wife's Convenience Not the Sole Ground for Transfer Under Section 24 CPC

The High Court of Karnataka has clarified that the convenience of a wife is not an absolute or sole ground for transferring matrimonial proceedings, especially when a husband undertakes to bear all travel expenses and demonstrate his own medical or professional hardships. In a nuanced balance of interests, the Court underscored that statutory mandates regarding the priority of earlier-filed petitions must be respected unless exceptional grounds are proven.

Justice B. Muralidhara Pai dismissed a petition filed by a wife seeking to transfer a divorce proceeding from Dharwad to Bidar. The Court found that the husband's offer to bear travel costs and his own medical condition outweighed the logistical challenges cited by the wife.

Section 21A Mandates Priority To Earlier Filed Petitions

While examining the rival contentions, the Court looked into the timing of the multiple litigations filed between the parties. It was noted that the husband had filed the petition for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Dharwad on January 6, 2025, which preceded the wife’s petitions for restitution of conjugal rights and maintenance.

The Court emphasized that Section 21A(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 explicitly mandates that when petitions are presented to different district courts, the petition presented later must be transferred to the district court where the earlier petition was filed. Relying on Sneha Vs Vinayak, the Court reiterated that this legal position is binding and prevents the transfer of the earlier-filed case simply for the convenience of one party.

Financial and Health Grounds Must Be Substantiated

The Petitioner-wife had sought the transfer on the grounds that she was a housewife with no independent income and could not travel the 443 km distance alone. However, the Court observed that she failed to disclose her health issues in the initial petition, only introducing them later through additional documents which lacked proper hospital seals.

On the contrary, the Respondent-husband established his own health concerns involving heart-related ailments and pointed out his professional responsibilities in managing a business spread across four states.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The concerns raised by her regarding the difficulty in traveling to Dharwad and other related issues can be addressed by directing the respondent to bear the expenses as undertaken by him. In the said background, coupled with his heart related ailment and his responsibility of running the business, this Court opines that the objections raised by the respondent opposing transfer of the case from Dharwad to Bidar is justified."

No Interference with Family Court Proceedings

The Court noted that the wife had already appeared before the Dharwad Court and engaged a counsel. It further observed that the husband had given a formal undertaking to expedite the matter and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Court has the following directions:

"The civil petition is dismissed."

Key Takeaways

Statutory Primacy Rules

Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act creates a mandatory framework where subsequent litigations must yield to the jurisdiction of the court where the first petition was filed.

Financial Undertakings Mitigate Hardship

Travel distance is not a per se ground for transfer if the opposing spouse undertakes to cover all travel and accommodation costs for the petitioner and a companion.

Balanced Hardship Assessment

Courts will weigh the health and professional obligations of both spouses rather than applying a blanket rule favoring the wife's convenience in transfer petitions.

Ratio

Under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Section 21A(2)(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, an earlier-filed matrimonial petition shall not be transferred to the court of a later-filed petition solely on the ground of the wife's convenience, provided the husband ensures financial support for travel and exhibits legitimate personal hardships of his own.

Background:

The dispute arose after the respondent-husband filed for divorce (M.C. No.5/2025) at the Family Court, Dharwad. The petitioner-wife subsequently filed for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and for restitution of conjugal rights under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Bidar. She moved the High Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, claiming she could not afford the travel or navigate the distance between Bidar and Dharwad.

The Respondent opposed the transfer, citing his own medical condition (anterior wall MI) and his business commitments. He further offered to pay for the wife's travel and stay, and promised to cross-examine her on the same day she records her evidence to minimize her trips to Dharwad. The Court agreed with the respondent and dismissed the transfer petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: CIVIL PETITION NO. 100129 OF 2025
Case Title: Smt. Pooja W/O. Pradeep Vastrad V. Shri Pradeep S/O. Prabhu Vastrad
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri K.S. Korishettar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Sriyuths D.A. Bhandarkar, Basappa Shellikeri & Guru Hiremath, Advocates

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 2624