No Bar To Consensual Transfer Of Matrimonial Cases U/S 24 CPC; Convenience Test Stands 'Considerably Diluted': Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that there is no legal impediment to order a transfer of a case by invoking powers under Section 24 Civil Procedure Code when the contesting parties are ad idem (in agreement).
The Court added that in cases of consensual transfers, the requirement for a detailed comparative examination of the balance of convenience stands considerably diluted.
The observation was made by a bench of Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava while allowing a transfer application in a divorce suit. The Court said that while the plaintiff is ordinarily the dominus litis (master of the suit), this right is deemed waived when the transfer is not opposed.
"When transfer is sought and is not opposed, and the Court finds no legal impediment, such transfer would clearly subserve the ends of justice. The requirement of recording reasons is sufficiently met by noting the consent of parties coupled with the Court's satisfaction regarding the propriety of transfer," the bench further remarked.
The bench was dealing with a Transfer filed by one Arju (the applicant-wife), seeking transfer of a divorce petition instituted by her husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, to the competent court in District Baghpat.
It was her case that she resides with her minor daughter at her parental home in Baghpat and that attending the proceedings in Meerut would cause her severe inconvenience.
In the High Court, the counsel appearing for the Husband stated that he had instructions not to oppose the present application for transfer.
Against this backdrop, the court noted that the transfer is not contested, which is a relevant and material consideration.
It added that though Section 24 CPC does not expressly use the expression "transfer by consent", nothing in the provision prohibits the Court from ordering transfer where both parties agree or where the opposite party raises no objection.
The Court also noted that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife deserves due consideration and that the cardinal principle governing the exercise of power under Section 24 of the CPC is that the ends of justice should be subserved.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and particularly in view of the hardship that has been pleaded by the applicant and the categorical "No Objection" expressed on behalf of the Husband, the Court found it a fit case to exercise powers under Section 24 CPC.
Thus, the transfer plea was allowed.
Case title - Arju @ Vimal vs. Umakant Parasar 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 51