The Allahabad High Court has refused to transfer a matrimonial proceeding from Aligarh to Gautam Budh Nagar, holding that the convenience of a wife and the schooling of a minor child, though relevant, cannot by themselves justify shifting a case to another court.
Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava dismissed the transfer application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, after finding that no genuine hardship or compelling circumstance had been established.
Background of the Case
The application sought transfer of Case No. 595 of 2025, instituted under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar.
The applicant stated that she was residing in Gautam Budh Nagar with her minor daughter, who was studying there. She argued that as the child’s primary caregiver, frequent travel to Aligarh would create financial and practical difficulties and affect the child’s education and welfare.
Another ground was that a maintenance petition under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was already pending before the Family Court at Gautam Budh Nagar. According to the applicant, having both matters before the same court would reduce hardship and avoid parallel proceedings.
The opposite party opposed the transfer, arguing that the applicant’s parental and maternal homes were in Aligarh and that her residence in Gautam Budh Nagar for the child’s education did not provide a sufficient ground to change the forum.
Court’s Observation
The High Court emphasised that Section 24 CPC gives the court discretionary power to transfer proceedings, but that power must be exercised carefully and only where the interests of justice require it.
The bench observed that the applicant must place convincing material before the court to show that continuing the proceedings at the existing forum would cause genuine hardship or result in failure of justice.
“The convenience of the wife and the welfare of a minor child are undoubtedly relevant considerations,” the Court noted, but they cannot become automatic grounds for transfer in every matrimonial case.
The Court also considered the pending maintenance proceedings at Gautam Budh Nagar. It held that merely having another proceeding before a different court does not automatically require both matters to be brought before one forum. The two proceedings had different purposes and no material showed that continuing them separately would cause prejudice or failure of justice.
Decision
The High Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated hardship of such a nature that she would effectively be deprived of a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings at Aligarh.
The Court held that the schooling of the minor daughter and the pending maintenance case, although relevant, did not outweigh the opposite party’s right to pursue the case before the forum lawfully chosen.
Accordingly, the transfer application was dismissed. The interim order, if any, was vacated, and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh was directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt. Priyanka Maheshwari v. Vaibhav Maheshwari
Case Number: Transfer Application (Civil) No. 376 of 2025
Judge: Hon’ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
Decision Date: July 30, 2026
-300x169.webp)
