Wife's Convenience No Lomger Paramount In Transfer Petitions; VC Facility Or Commute Compensation Can Be Granted: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the convenience of wife is no longer the sole or paramount consideration for deciding a transfer petition in matrimonial disputes, as there are viable alternatives available now including a video conferencing facility or compensation of travel expenses. The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed,"convenience of wife/lady is not the...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the convenience of wife is no longer the sole or paramount consideration for deciding a transfer petition in matrimonial disputes, as there are viable alternatives available now including a video conferencing facility or compensation of travel expenses.
The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed,
"convenience of wife/lady is not the paramount consideration for deciding the transfer applications and alternatives to transfer proceedings have been provided, viz. through Video Conferencing. If the matter is to be proved by the witnesses of the place where the matter is being prosecuted then the other side can suitably be adjusted by making payment of commute".
The wife had filed a petition under Section 24 of the CrPC seeking the transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights case filed by her husband before the Family Court of Narsinghpur.
The counsel for the wife contended that the distance between Harda and Narsinghpur exceeded 300 kms making travel difficult and unsafe for her.
The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments and concluded that transfer petitions should not be routinely allowed merely on the ground of inconvenience to the wife.
The bench noted that the parties are not required to appear at every hearing, and the counsels may represent them. Further, the personal presence of the parties is generally required only at the stage of conciliation and evidence. Further, it was noted that the modern facilities, such as video conferencing, provided an effective alternative to the physical transfer of proceedings.
Additionally, the bench observed that the wife had filed two FIRs against the husband in Narsinghpur itself and had travelled there in connection with those proceedings. Therefore, the bench disposed of the petition.
The bench held, "the applicant may appear before the Family Court, District Narsinghpur through video conferencing. The applicant shall attend the Court at Narsinghpur for her examination on the date fixed by the Court below for which the expenses would be borne by the respondent. The Family Court, Narsinghpur is directed to fix the date for examination of the applicant and accordingly, direct the respondent to make payment of the expenses of travel, lodging and boarding".
Case Title: Ekta Vaish v Deepak Kuchbandiya [MCC-478-2026]