The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a wife’s convenience alone cannot justify the transfer of a divorce case. The court allowed her to appear via video conferencing, with travel expenses borne by the husband.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MADHYA PRADESH: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently delivered an important judgment on a transfer petition in a divorce case, highlighting the principles courts consider before transferring matrimonial disputes.
The court has disposed of a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking the transfer of a divorce case. While the Court declined to transfer the matrimonial case solely on the ground of the wife’s convenience, it permitted her to participate in proceedings through video conferencing, except for the stage of recording her evidence.
The petition was filed by Smt. Ranjana Chouksey, seeking the transfer of RCSHM No. 39/2025 from the Family Court, Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur, to the Family Court, Narmadapuram. The case involved her husband, Vaibhav Rai, who had filed for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Facts of the Case
The marriage between Smt. Ranjana Chouksey and Vaibhav Rai solemnized on April 19, 2024, in Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur. The couple was blessed with a child on February 19, 2025. However, soon after, matrimonial disputes arose, leading the husband to file a divorce petition in the Family Court, Gadarwara.
At present, the wife resides at her parental home in Narmadapuram, where she is a homemaker fully dependent on her family. Traveling to Gadarwara, which is approximately 150 kilometers away, has been challenging for her, particularly as she must manage the journey along with her infant child.
The wife argued that her convenience and childcare responsibilities warranted transferring the case.
Arguments of the Parties
Wife’s Submission:
- Residing at the parental home in Narmadapuram.
- Lacks means to travel frequently for hearings.
- Traveling alone with an infant causes extreme hardship.
- Requested transfer to Family Court, Narmadapuram, for convenience.
Husband’s Submission:
- The divorce petition is based on cruelty, requiring evidence at the matrimonial home in Gadarwara.
- The mere convenience of a wife cannot be the sole factor for transfer.
- Willing to bear travel and commuting expenses for the wife.
- The case is already at an advanced stage of evidence.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Deepak Khot carefully considered the submissions of both parties and referred to established Supreme Court precedents. In the case of Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das (2006), the Apex Court noted that courts should not grant transfer petitions solely based on a woman’s convenience, as past leniency had often been misused.
Similarly, in Preeti Sharma vs. Manjit Sharma (2005), the Court emphasized that while travel and stay expenses could be reimbursed to facilitate a party’s attendance, convenience alone was not sufficient to justify the transfer of a case.
These precedents guided the High Court’s approach in balancing the practical difficulties faced by the petitioner with the procedural integrity of the ongoing trial. The Court emphasized:
“Only the convenience is not the reasonable factor which can determine the case of transfer. If the matter is to be proved by witnesses at the original court, the other side can be suitably adjusted by paying travel expenses.”
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the transfer petition but made provisions to balance convenience and fairness:
- The wife may appear via video conferencing for most proceedings.
- She must physically attend court for her examination, with travel expenses borne by the husband.
- The Family Court is directed to fix a date for her examination and ensure payment for travel and stay.
- For all other proceedings, the wife can attend remotely, with her counsel present at Gadarwara.
Case Title:
Smt. Ranjana Chouksey Alias Shrim Chouksey Vs. Vaibhav Rai Case Number: Misc. Civil Case No. 2598 of 2025
MISC. CIVIL CASE No. 2598 of 2025
READ ORDER
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Conjugal Rights
