Transfer of Matrimonial Petition Under Section 24 CPC
An advocate seeking transfer of a matrimonial petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must establish that it is expedient for the ends of justice to move the case from one competent court to another. The application typically arises when the wife, residing separately, faces genuine hardship in defending or prosecuting a proceeding filed by the husband at a distant location. The court balances the inconvenience to the husband against the comparative hardship to the wife, often factoring in the presence of a minor child and the wife's lack of independent income.
Courts consistently weigh the convenience of the wife as a paramount, though not exclusive, consideration in matrimonial transfers. While the listed cases do not directly formulate a rigid rule, the judicial approach discernible from decisions such as Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Ors. reflects a broader equitable principle of mitigating hardship for the financially dependent spouse. The outcome turns on the specific facts of distance, dependent care, and economic disparity rather than a mechanical application of gender.
The leading cases
12 judgments · 12 Supreme Court · most-cited first
What LexPilot's research engine returns for this question, ranked by court and how often each judgment has been cited since. Read the full judgment before you rely on a holding.
- 1
Shayara Bano v. Union of India and Others
2017 INSC 785Supreme Court · 2017cited 2,090 times
By a majority of 3:2, the practice of talaq-e-biddat is set aside. Per Nariman J.: Triple talaq is not an essential religious practice under Art. 25; the 1937 Act, as a pre-constitutional law recognising and enforcing…
- 2
Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.
2020 INSC 631Supreme Court · 2020cited 1,767 times
The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's orders granting interim maintenance; the husband was directed to pay entire arrears within 12 weeks and to continue complying during pendency of s. 125 CrPC proceedings…
- 3
Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice
2018 INSC 790Supreme Court · 2018cited 1,538 times
Section 377 IPC is partially read down and struck down insofar as it penalises consensual sexual activity between adults. It is violative of Arts.14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The provision remains valid to…
- 4
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr v. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors
1977INSC227Supreme Court · 1977cited 906 times
The Supreme Court held that Article 329(b) is a blanket ban on litigative challenges to electoral steps taken by the Election Commission during the election process. Therefore, a writ petition under Article 226…
- 5
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
1994INSC112Supreme Court · 1994cited 765 times
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the TADA Acts and the U.P. Amendment Act, finding them to be within Parliament's legislative competence. While upholding most provisions, the Court read into…
- 6
The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar and Another
2019 INSC 254Supreme Court · 2019cited 617 times
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in mechanically quashing the FIRs for serious non-compoundable offences. The High Court failed to consider the distinction between personal and social wrongs, the…
- 7
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (regd.), Sindri and Others v. Union of India and Others
1980INSC217Supreme Court · 1980cited 598 times
The Supreme Court held that the sale of redundant plants and equipment did not violate the workers' fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) as it did not affect their employment and the right to pursue a calling is…
- 8
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
1978INSC16Supreme Court · 1978cited 426 times
The Court held that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21. It further held that Article 21 is not mutually exclusive of Article 19, and laws affecting personal liberty must also…
- 9
Lily Thomas, etc. Etc v. Union of India and Ors
2000INSC293Supreme Court · 2000cited 415 times
The Court held that the interpretation of law relates back to the date of the law itself and does not operate prospectively. A second marriage by a Hindu convert without dissolving the first marriage is void and an…
- 10
Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and Anr v. Reserve Bank of India
1992INSC32Supreme Court · 1992cited 398 times
The directions issued by the RBI in 1987 were statutory, within the RBI's powers under Section 45K(3) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, and were aimed at safeguarding depositors' interests. The Court held that…
- 11
Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Ors.
2022 INSC 498Supreme Court · 2022cited 392 times
Excess payments made by an employer due to a wrong interpretation of service rules — without any misrepresentation or fraud by the employee — are not recoverable in equity. Courts exercise judicial discretion to…
- 12
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors v. Union of India & Ors
1980INSC142Supreme Court · 1980cited 389 times
(1) Sections 4 and 55 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, are void as they transgress the limitations on Parliament's amending power and damage the basic structure of the Constitution. Clause (5) of…
Frequently asked questions
Is the convenience of the wife the sole governing consideration for transferring a matrimonial case under Section 24 CPC?
The convenience of the wife is a weighty and often decisive factor, but courts do not treat it as the sole consideration. The listed holdings do not lay down an absolute rule; instead, the court examines the balance of hardship by comparing the wife's lack of means and child-care responsibilities against the husband's capacity to travel. The ultimate test remains the ends of justice on the facts of each case.
How does the presence of a minor child affect a transfer petition filed by the wife?
The presence of a minor child residing with the wife significantly strengthens her case for transfer. Courts recognise that uprooting the child or leaving the child without the mother's care during prolonged hearings imposes a greater hardship on the wife. This factor, combined with the wife's financial dependence, tilts the balance in favour of transferring the case to the location where she resides with the child.
What must the wife plead to secure a transfer when she lacks independent means to travel?
The wife must plead specific facts showing her lack of independent income, the distance and cost of travel, and the absence of a responsible family member to accompany her. The court's approach, consistent with the equitable considerations reflected in cases like Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr., is to prevent the husband from using geographical distance as a tool to harass or force a default. The wife's financial hardship is weighed against the husband's ability to bear the inconvenience of a transfer.
Free trial · Research assistance, not legal advice — always read the judgment before you rely on it.
More on family & matrimonial
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS
- Child Custody and Visitation under the Guardians and Wards Act and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
- Divorce on the Ground of Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act
- Daughters’ Rights in Coparcenary Property under Hindu Succession Act
- Partition of Joint Family Property