'Husband Raising Minor Children': Supreme Court Sets Aside Matrimonial Case Transfer For Wife's Convenience

The Supreme Court recently set aside an order transferring a matrimonial dispute from the family court in Ahmedabad to Vadodara, holding that the wife was a working woman, the distance between the two cities was only about 110 km, and she could participate in the proceedings through virtual mode except when her personal presence was specifically required.

A Bench of Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar also noted that the couple's two minor children were residing with the husband, and requiring him to travel for every hearing could cause inconvenience to both him and the children.

The appeal challenged a July 26, 2024 order of the Gujarat High Court, which had allowed the wife's transfer application and shifted the husband's petition under Section 13A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the family court at Ahmedabad to Vadodara.

Why did the Supreme Court refuse the transfer of the matrimonial case?

The husband argued that the couple's two children, aged 14 years and 5 years, were living with him. He submitted that transferring the case to Vadodara would cause hardship as he is responsible for taking care of the children.

He further contended that the wife was a working woman and the distance of about 110 km between Ahmedabad and Vadodara could be easily travelled by her. He also pointed out that she could attend the proceedings through virtual mode, except on dates when the trial court specifically directs her to remain present in person. On these grounds, he sought setting aside of the transfer order.

What did the wife argue before the Supreme Court?

Opposing the appeal, the wife's counsel argued that the husband could take the support of his family members to look after the children and, therefore, his plea of inconvenience was not justified.

However, the wife's counsel did not dispute that she was a working woman or that the distance between Ahmedabad and Vadodara was about 110 km.

Supreme Court's decision

After considering the submissions and the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the Gujarat High Court was not justified in exercising its discretion to transfer the matrimonial case.

The Bench observed that the inconvenience likely to be caused to the husband, particularly because he has to take care of both minor children, weighed against transferring the proceedings.

Accordingly, Court allowed the appeal, set aside the high court's transfer order, and directed that the wife would be permitted to participate in the proceedings through virtual mode until the trial court specifically requires her personal presence.

Case Title: Vipul Chhanganlal Solanki Vs Nikita Vipul Solanki

Bench: Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar

Date of Judgment: January 12, 2026