High Court of Gujarat
R/Misc. Civil Application (For Transfer) No. 795 of 2026
September 11, 2026
Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat
Komal D/o Shyamsundar Manihar W/o Gopal Omprakash Rathi(Applicant / Wife)vs.Gopal Omprakash Rathi(Opponent / Husband)
"Disclaimer: This article is a simplified summary of the court judgment prepared for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or an official legal document. For complete facts and full context, please refer to the official judgment attached below."
What Was the Case About
A wife living in Ahmedabad filed a transfer application seeking to move a family court suit instituted by her husband from Surat to Ahmedabad. She highlighted that travelling the 240 km distance one-way created severe hardship, especially since she received no financial support and already had maintenance proceedings pending against her husband in Ahmedabad. After court-ordered mediation between the parties failed to reach a settlement, the High Court considered the transfer request on its legal merits.
Key Arguments
- Arguments by the Wife (Applicant):
- She resides in Ahmedabad, whereas her husband instituted Family Suit No. 1863 of 2025 before the Family Court in Surat.
- The distance of approximately 240 km each way between Ahmedabad and Surat causes great hardship and inconvenience for her to attend court proceedings.
- She receives no financial help from her husband and has already filed maintenance proceedings in Ahmedabad, where he is required to appear.
- The husband filed no written reply to oppose the transfer request.
- Position of the Husband (Opponent):
- Neither the husband nor his legal representative appeared during the hearing, and no written response was filed to contest the transfer petition.
What Did the Court Decide
The High Court allowed the application and ordered Family Suit No. 1863 of 2025 to be transferred from the Family Court at Surat to the Family Court at Ahmedabad. The Court reasoned that:
- Comparative Inconvenience: The hardship and inconvenience to the wife in traveling 240 km without financial assistance far outweighed any inconvenience to the husband.
- Supreme Court Precedents: Following established Supreme Court rulings (Smita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, and Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo), courts must prioritize the convenience of the wife in matrimonial transfer disputes.
- Option for Virtual Appearance: To minimize hardship to the husband, the Court directed the Family Court at Ahmedabad to permit him to join proceedings via video conferencing or online mode whenever requested, unless his physical presence is strictly necessary at a specific stage.
Why This Judgment Matters to Everyday Citizens
This judgment reinforces that courts will protect matrimonial litigants from unfair travel burdens, ensuring financial hardship does not prevent a party from defending their rights. For women navigating legal disputes across different cities without financial support, the ruling confirms that distance and comparative hardship are decisive factors in transferring family court cases to their place of residence. Additionally, by encouraging the use of video conferencing for out-of-station husbands, the judgment highlights how modern court systems balance fairness for both spouses through hybrid hearings.
Applicable Laws and Sections
Acts Applicable
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
Key Sections
- Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Empowers High Courts and District Courts to transfer suits, appeals, or legal proceedings from one subordinate court to another based on justice and comparative convenience.