The Madhya Pradesh High Court has declined a wife’s request to transfer a matrimonial case from Narsinghpur to Harda, holding that mere inconvenience is not enough to shift proceedings. Instead, the Court permitted her to appear through video conferencing and directed the husband to bear her travel and stay expenses whenever her physical presence is required.
The order was passed by Justice Deepak Khot on February 18, 2026.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Allows Single Mother to Change Daughter’s Name, Caste in School Record
Background of the Case
The case arose from a transfer petition filed by Smt. Ekta Vaish under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. She sought transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights petition - filed by her husband Deepak Kuchbandiya under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act - from the Family Court in Narsinghpur to a competent court in Harda.
The marriage between the parties was solemnised on July 10, 2024. Soon after, disputes arose.
The husband initiated proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Narsinghpur. Meanwhile, the wife filed a maintenance petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Family Court in Harda.
Counsel for the wife submitted that she had faced cruelty and assault at her matrimonial home. Two FIRs were lodged at Kotwali Police Station, Narsinghpur - one in July 2025 and another in October 2025. She argued that due to threats and fear, it was difficult for her to travel to Narsinghpur.
Read also:- Jharkhand HC Seeks Answers on 437 Custodial Deaths, Orders Home Secretary to Clarify Judicial
Her counsel further told the Court that she had no independent source of income and was dependent on her family. The distance between Harda and Narsinghpur, the Court was informed, is over 300 kilometres. Travelling alone posed hardship.
“She is entitled to contest the case at a place convenient to her,” her lawyer submitted.
Court’s Observations
Justice Khot, however, examined the legal position on transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das and observed that leniency towards women in transfer matters cannot be automatic. The apex court had previously cautioned that transfer petitions should be decided on merit and not merely on the ground that the applicant is a woman.
Quoting earlier precedents, the Court noted, “Merely because the petitioner is a lady does not mean she cannot travel… At the highest she can be paid expenses for travel and stay.”
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Cuts Jail Term in ATM Cloning Case, Enhances Fine to ₹2 Lakh Each
The judge also relied on several decisions of coordinate benches of the High Court, which consistently held that inconvenience alone is not sufficient ground for transfer. In many such cases, courts had allowed alternatives such as video conferencing and directed husbands to bear travel expenses.
Importantly, the Court pointed out that the wife herself had travelled to Narsinghpur to lodge FIRs and record statements. This fact weighed with the bench.
From the legal precedents cited, the Court concluded that “convenience of wife is not the paramount consideration” and that modern arrangements such as virtual hearings can adequately address concerns.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Cuts Jail Term in ATM Cloning Case, Enhances Fine to ₹2 Lakh Each
Decision of the Court
After considering the facts, the High Court declined to transfer the matrimonial case from Narsinghpur to Harda.
However, balancing the interests of both parties, the Court issued specific directions:
- The wife may appear before the Family Court at Narsinghpur through video conferencing for further proceedings.
- She must physically appear only on the date fixed for her examination.
- On such occasions, the husband shall bear her travel, lodging, and boarding expenses.
- The Family Court at Narsinghpur has been directed to fix a date for her examination and ensure that the expenses are paid in advance.
- For other dates, she is at liberty to participate virtually while being represented by counsel at Narsinghpur.
“With the aforesaid,” the Court concluded, disposing of the miscellaneous civil case.
Case Title: Smt. Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya
Case No.: Misc. Civil Case No. 478 of 2026
Decision Date: February 18, 2026
