The Jharkhand High Court has affirmed that courts must consider the convenience and lack of independent income of a wife when deciding transfer petitions under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially where significant distance and financial hardship impede access to legal proceedings. This judgment reaffirms existing principles and offers binding guidance for subordinate courts handling transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Tr.Pet.CVL/60/2025 of TANNU KUMARI Vs AJEET KUMAR |
| CNR | JHHC010076322025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate/family courts within Jharkhand |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure / Matrimonial Law |
| Questions of Law | When should matrimonial proceedings be transferred to accommodate the wife’s convenience and lack of financial means under Section 24 CPC? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court clarified that when the wife has no independent income, is dependent on her parents, and faces substantial hardship due to the distance of the forum, it is just and equitable to transfer matrimonial proceedings to a court near her residence. The court found that the interests of justice prioritize the wife’s access to the forum, particularly where the financial and physical burdens are significant. Granting the transfer ensures fair opportunity to defend and participate in the case, reaffirming sensitivity to the practical realities faced by women litigants in matrimonial matters. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, after marriage, was subjected to harassment and later received notice of nullity proceedings filed by her husband at Family Court, Ramgarh, over 50 km from her parental home in Ranchi. She has no source of income, is residing with her parents, and cannot afford the costs and inconvenience of travel over such distance to defend the case. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Family Courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, especially in transfer petitions by women citing lack of means or distance |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that economic hardship and lack of independent income are potent grounds for allowing transfer petitions filed by wives in matrimonial disputes.
- Highlights that the distance between the wife’s residence and the trial court, if substantial and impacting her ability to contest, will weigh heavily in the court’s exercise of discretion under Section 24 CPC.
- Underscores the principle that the ends of justice take precedence when considering the forum for matrimonial litigation.
- Lawyers may cite this as binding precedent in Jharkhand when seeking transfer of marital disputes on grounds of inconvenience and financial incapacity of women litigants.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The court considered the petitioner-wife’s submission that she had no independent income and was living entirely at her parental house, unable to bear the cost and inconvenience of attending proceedings more than 50 km away in Ramgarh. The judge found these circumstances compelling, especially as the lack of financial means and the significant travel distance would hinder the petitioner’s ability to effectively defend herself in the nullity proceedings. Applying the “ends of justice” standard and exercising the discretion conferred under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court held it proper to transfer the case to the Family Court at Ranchi, ensuring the petitioner has a fair opportunity to litigate.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought transfer of matrimonial suit from Family Court, Ramgarh, to Family Court, Ranchi.
- Submitted she had no knowledge of the nullity petition till notice was received.
- Asserted she had no income, is dependent on her parents, and the distance (50+ km) makes attending proceedings at Ramgarh financially and physically burdensome.
Respondent (Opposite Party)
- Arguments of the respondent are not set out in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Tannu Kumari, married the respondent, Ajeet Kumar, on 04.08.2023 under Hindu rites. Shortly after marriage, disputes arose, and she eventually resided with her parents at Ranchi. The respondent filed Original Suit No. 152 of 2024 seeking nullity of marriage under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Ramgarh. The petitioner sought transfer of these proceedings to Ranchi, citing lack of income, dependency on parents, and the substantial distance and cost involved in defending herself at Ramgarh.
Statutory Analysis
The court analyzed Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers High Courts to transfer civil proceedings between courts for the “ends of justice.” The judgment applied this provision to matrimonial suits, with specific emphasis on the inability of a wife with no independent means to participate in distant legal proceedings, finding this sufficient to warrant transfer.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The court reaffirmed existing law on transfer of matrimonial cases based on convenience and hardship of the wife, without departing from established principles.