High Court of Gujarat
R/Misc. Civil Application (For Transfer) No. 806 of 2026
August 21, 2026
Mr. Justice Maulik J. Shelat
Viralben Jaysukhbhai Nayak & Anr. (Applicants / Wife & Minor Son) vs. Nikhileshkumar Dipakbhai Nayak (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 residing with her minor son in Patan filed a transfer application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure to move a family court suit instituted by her husband from the Family Court at Lunawada in Mahisagar to a competent court in Patan. She highlighted that traveling the 430 km round-trip distance between Patan and Mahisagar caused her severe hardship, especially since she was raising her child without receiving regular maintenance from her husband despite prior court orders.
Key Arguments
- Arguments by the Wife (Applicants):
- She resides with her minor son in Patan, whereas her husband instituted Family Suit No. 57 of 2025 at Mahisagar.
- Traveling the 430 km round-trip distance between Patan and Mahisagar causes immense inconvenience and hardship.
- She is not receiving regular maintenance from her husband despite court orders and has already instituted recovery of maintenance proceedings against him in Patan, where he is required to appear.
- Arguments by the Husband (Opponent):
- He contended that there was no merit in the transfer application.
- He argued that the wife could attend court proceedings via video conferencing without facing inconvenience.
What Did the Court Decide
The High Court allowed the transfer application and ordered Family Suit No. 57 of 2025 to be transferred from the Family Court at Mahisagar to the concerned Court at Patan. The Court held that:
- Comparative Inconvenience: The hardship and travel burden on the wife—who is caring for a minor child and dealing with unpaid maintenance—is significantly higher than 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.
- Joint Hearing and Virtual Option: The Court requested the Patan court to hear the transferred family suit together with the pending maintenance recovery proceeding, while allowing the husband to join proceedings via video conferencing when his physical presence is not required.
Why This Judgment Matters to Everyday Citizens
This judgment reinforces that courts will prioritize fairness and convenience for wives raising minor children when deciding where family court disputes should be held. In real-life terms, it ensures that a husband cannot force his estranged wife to travel long distances to attend court proceedings in a far-off district, especially when she receives no regular financial support. By allowing cases to be transferred to the wife's place of residence and offering virtual hearing options to the husband, the ruling balances legal rights, minimizes financial and physical stress on single mothers, and streamlines family litigation.
Applicable Laws and Sections
Acts Applicable
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
Key Sections
- Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Empowers High Courts to transfer suits or legal proceedings from one subordinate court to another based on comparative convenience and the interests of justice.