Convenience Of Wife Not Paramount: MP High Court Refuses Transfer In Matrimonial Dispute

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has reiterated that the convenience of the wife is no longer the sole or paramount consideration in deciding transfer petitions arising out of matrimonial disputes, even as it crafted a balanced remedy by permitting appearance through video conferencing and directing payment of travel expenses.

Justice Deepak Khot, deciding Misc. Civil Case No. 478 of 2026, filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, refused to transfer RCSHM No. 123/2025 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Narsinghpur to a competent court at District Harda.

The applicant-wife had sought transfer of the husband’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing hardship, lack of independent income, and the distance of over 300 kilometres between Harda and Narsinghpur. She also relied upon two FIRs lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Narsinghpur, alleging cruelty and assault, contending that fear and threat made it difficult for her to attend proceedings at Narsinghpur.

Appearing for the applicant, Shri Samar Singh Rajput, Advocate, argued that the wife was dependent on her family and required to travel alone, which would cause undue hardship. The court, however, examined the evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on transfer of matrimonial cases and underscored that leniency shown in earlier years had been recalibrated.

Relying on Anindita Das v. Srijit Das (2006) 9 SCC 197, the court reproduced the Supreme Court’s caution that “leniency of this Court is being misused by the women” and that each transfer petition must be considered on its own merits. The Apex Court had further clarified that inconvenience could be addressed by directing payment of travel and stay expenses rather than by transferring proceedings.

The bench also cited Preeti Sharma v. Manjit Sharma (2005) 11 SCC 535, where the Supreme Court held that “merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel,” and that expenses for travel and stay can adequately mitigate hardship.

Justice Khot drew support from multiple coordinate bench decisions of the High court, including Sunaina Vishwakarma v. Vijay Kumar Vishwakarma, Malti Shakyawar v. Mukesh Shakyawar, Sujata v. Abhishek Kulhare, and Pooja Sharma v. Rakesh, all of which declined transfer where inconvenience alone was pleaded and alternative safeguards were available.

The court observed that parties in matrimonial proceedings are not required to appear on every date and that personal presence is ordinarily necessary only at the stages of conciliation and evidence. Significantly, it noted that the applicant herself had travelled to Narsinghpur in connection with the FIRs lodged against the respondent-husband.

From the “above enunciation of law,” the court held that “convenience of wife/lady is not the paramount consideration for deciding the transfer applications and alternatives to transfer proceedings have been provided, viz. through Video Conferencing”.

Balancing equities, the High court disposed of the petition with directions that the applicant may appear before the Family court, Narsinghpur through video conferencing. It further directed that for her examination, the applicant shall attend physically on the date fixed, and “the expenses would be borne by the respondent.” The Family court was instructed to ensure advance payment of travel, lodging and boarding expenses and to facilitate further appearances via video conferencing.

Case Title: Smt Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya

Date of Order: February 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Khot