Grounds to Reject Wife’s Transfer Petition Under Section 24 CPC: A Complete Legal Guide for Husbands

1. Petition Filed as a Tool of Pressure or Revenge

One of the strongest grounds to resist a transfer petition is to demonstrate that the wife is attempting to take undue advantage of her own wrongs. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Rinky Rani v. Daljit Kumar, 2022 (2) HLR 433, held that a wife cannot be permitted to take undue benefit of her own wrongs. The court observed that if the petition is nothing but a sweet revenge by the wife to force the husband to give up his rights under the law, then the jurisdiction under Section 24 cannot be invoked.

The judgment clearly laid down that unless bona fide and compelling reasons exist, the court will not come to the aid of the applicant. In that case, the petition was dismissed. This precedent is a powerful weapon for any husband who can establish that the wife’s motive behind the transfer is malicious rather than genuine.

2. Mere Lack of Independent Income Is Not a Ground

Wives often claim that they have no independent source of income and are dependent on their parents, and hence, they cannot travel long distances to attend court. The Telangana High Court, in Malyala Bhagya @ Rallabandi Amulya v. Rallabandi Ramanachary, 2021 (5) ALT 592, rejected such a plea.

In this matter, the wife sought transfer of the matrimonial petition from the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, to the Family Court at L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. Her grounds were straightforward: she had no independent income, her parents were poor, she could not afford travel expenses, and the court at Siddipet was nearly one hundred kilometres from her residence at Hyderabad. She also alleged that she was not receiving any maintenance.

Despite all these pleas, the High Court held that a petition cannot be transferred merely to suit the convenience of the wife. The court further clarified that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be exercised in a manner that ignores the binding provisions of Section 19 and Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Senior Civil Judge at Siddipet was directed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 2017 (4) SCC 150 and 2018 (1) SCC 1.

The takeaway is simple. Financial weakness, parental dependence, or absence of maintenance, in isolation, do not create an automatic right of transfer.

3. Reasonable Distance Between the Two Courts

Distance is often cited as a ground of hardship, but the distance must be significant enough to genuinely cause inconvenience. The Gujarat High Court, in Ekta Gopalbhai Bhavsar v. Manishkumar Babubhai Mistry, 2022 (1) LRC CN-24A (Guj), dealt with a transfer petition where the wife sought to move the case from Bharuch to Vadodara.

The court noted that the distance between the two places was not long enough to cause hardship to the applicant. The wife could travel to Bharuch for attending court proceedings without any real difficulty. On this short ground alone, the application was rejected.

For husbands, this is a crucial argument. If the distance between the two courts is manageable by regular transport, a transfer petition is unlikely to succeed.

4. Unsubstantiated Allegations of Bias Against the Judge

Another tactic sometimes used in transfer petitions is to allege bias, favouritism, or partiality on the part of the presiding judge. The Kerala High Court, in Roshni Babu V.B. v. Anil K.B., 2023 KER 5031, dealt with such a petition head-on.

The court held that an erroneous order cannot be labelled as an order passed with bias or favouritism. The petitioner had miserably failed to substantiate the allegation of bias. The High Court sternly warned the petitioner against trying to arm twist or browbeat the judiciary to get things done in her own way, and directed her to stop the habit of levelling unsubstantiated insinuations against judges and undermining the dignity of the judicial institution.

This judgment is particularly important. If the wife attempts to create a shadow over the integrity of the trial court without any concrete material, the High Court is very likely to refuse transfer and reprimand such conduct.

5. Multiplicity of Proceedings and Principle of Judicial Economy

Sometimes, the husband himself may file a transfer petition seeking to club proceedings, and the wife opposes it. Courts generally favour clubbing of proceedings that arise out of the same matrimonial relationship to avoid conflicting judgments and to save judicial time.

In Santosh Machindra Mulik v. Mohini Mithu Choudhari (Mrs.), 2020 (1) CivCC 198, the Bombay High Court allowed the transfer of a domestic violence proceeding from the Judicial Magistrate First Class to the Family Court where the divorce petition was pending. The court relied on Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and held that the Family Court has jurisdiction to hear both proceedings together. The court also clarified that loss of an additional right of revision does not amount to denial of justice.

Similarly, in Vijay Suryakant Kakade v. Anushka Vijay Kakade, 2023 BHC-AS 4684, the Bombay High Court allowed clubbing of proceedings filed by the wife under the Domestic Violence Act with the divorce petition filed by the husband, observing that transfer would reduce the burden on courts and would not cause inconvenience to the wife who would not have to travel outside.

In Sandip Mrinmoy Chakrabaorty v. Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty, 2018 (6) MhLJ(Cri) 499, the Bombay High Court again permitted the clubbing of a domestic violence proceeding with the matrimonial petition before the Family Court, emphasising that multiplicity of litigations must be avoided.

So, where the wife tries to oppose clubbing simply to keep the husband running between two different courts, this opposition too can be successfully countered.