Case Background
The matter came before the Patna High Court in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1224 of 2023. The petitioner, the wife, filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She asked the High Court to transfer Divorce Case No. 51 of 2022.
That divorce case had been filed by the husband before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa. The petitioner wanted it shifted to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur.
The judgment records that the parties were married on 09.12.2020 as per Hindu rites and rituals. According to the petitioner, soon after marriage, she was subjected to demands for dowry. When those alleged demands were not met, she states she was tortured in various ways.
Based on these events, she lodged Sadar P.S. Case No. 686 of 2022 for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the opposite party and others.
The petitioner further filed Maintenance Case No. 125 of 2023 against the husband before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur. She also initiated Domestic Violence Case No. 1154 of 2023 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
Thus, three separate proceedings between the parties were already pending in Muzaffarpur when she approached the Patna High Court seeking transfer of the husband’s divorce case from Saharsa.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar heard the application on 16.01.2026. The Court first heard arguments of both sides and then examined applicable legal principles, especially on transfer of matrimonial cases under Section 24 CPC.
On behalf of the petitioner-wife, it was argued that she was a “hapless lady” fully dependent upon her old aged parents. She stated there was nobody else to look after her and she had no financial assistance.
She highlighted that three of the four cases between the parties were already pending before courts at Muzaffarpur: the maintenance case, the domestic violence case and the criminal case registered at Sadar P.S. Muzaffarpur. Only the divorce case was pending in Saharsa.
The petitioner said she found it very difficult to travel the distance of about 160 kilometres from Muzaffarpur to Saharsa to attend the divorce proceedings. On these grounds, she requested that the divorce case be shifted to Muzaffarpur.
On the other hand, the opposite party-husband opposed the transfer. His learned advocate filed a counter affidavit. The Court records that, according to the opposite party, all the three other cases had been filed “back to back one by one after filing of Divorce case” to wreak vengeance and put pressure on him.
Regarding the hardship of travel, the husband argued that there was good connectivity between Saharsa and Muzaffarpur through a four-lane road as well as the railway network. He also expressed readiness to pay the statutory amount for the petitioner’s travel on every date of appearance.
The opposite party described the allegations of the petitioner as concocted and submitted that she did not deserve sympathetic consideration merely because she was the wife. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had already appeared and filed her written statement in the divorce case at Saharsa.
Before deciding, the Patna High Court examined relevant Supreme Court decisions on transfer of matrimonial cases. The Court particularly relied on the judgment in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha [AIR 2022 SC 4318].
Quoting from that judgment, the High Court noted that the “cardinal principle” for exercising power under Section 24 CPC is that the ends of justice must demand transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding.
In matrimonial matters, the Supreme Court had held that courts must consider the economic situation of both parties, their social background, behaviour patterns, standard of life before and after marriage, and under whose protection they are living and earning their livelihood.
The Supreme Court further held that, given the socio-economic conditions in Indian society, generally the convenience of the wife should be preferred while deciding transfer requests in matrimonial disputes. It also observed that when several cases between the same parties involving common questions of fact and law are pending in different courts, it is desirable that they be tried together by the same judge. This helps avoid multiple trials of the same issues and prevents conflicting decisions.
The Patna High Court also referred to two earlier Supreme Court rulings: Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237. In these cases, the Supreme Court ruled that more weight and consideration should be given to the convenience of female litigants. Transfer of legal proceedings from one court to another should ordinarily be allowed to prevent undue hardship to women.
Having set out these principles, the Patna High Court applied them to the facts of the present case. The Court observed that, out of four pending cases between the parties, three were already before the jurisdictional courts in Muzaffarpur.
It noted that the petitioner was about 30 years of age and would face serious difficulty in attending a court situated almost 160 km away. The Court further recorded that there was no one in her family to look after her except her aged parents.
In light of these circumstances and guided by the Supreme Court precedents that emphasise the wife’s convenience in matrimonial transfers, the Court found “substance in the present application.”
Therefore, the Patna High Court allowed the transfer petition. It directed that Divorce Case No. 51 of 2022 be transferred from the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharsa to the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur.
The Court also issued further directions for the smooth handling of the case after transfer. It ordered that, once the record is received, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur must issue fresh notice to both parties. The Family Court has been asked to proceed with the matter and dispose of the divorce case in accordance with law, expeditiously.
With these directions, the High Court allowed the application and concluded the matter.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for women who are facing matrimonial disputes and multiple court cases in different districts. The Patna High Court clearly recognised that long-distance travel, lack of financial support and dependence on aged parents can make it very hard for a woman to attend distant court hearings.
The Court followed the Supreme Court’s view that, in such situations, the wife’s convenience normally deserves priority. It also underlined that where most of the related cases are already pending in one place, it is better and more just to hear all matters there.
For ordinary readers, this means that a wife who is struggling to travel to another district for a divorce case can, in appropriate circumstances, ask the High Court to transfer the case closer to where she lives and where her other cases are running. However, each case will depend on its own facts and the court will check whether the request is genuine and in the interests of justice.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Should Divorce Case No. 51 of 2022, filed by the husband at Saharsa, be transferred to Muzaffarpur under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Answer: Yes. Considering that three connected cases between the parties are already pending at Muzaffarpur, the petitioner-wife’s dependence on aged parents, the distance of about 160 km, and Supreme Court rulings giving priority to the wife’s convenience, the Patna High Court ordered transfer of the divorce case to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur.
Cases Cited by the Court
N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, AIR 2022 SC 4318
Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay, (2001) 10 SCC 41
Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237
Case Details
Case Number: Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 1224 of 2023
Case Title: Priti Kumari v. Ayush Kumar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Kumar
Citation: 2026 (2) PLJR 222
Advocates: Mr. Siyaram Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner-wife; Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate for the opposite party-husband
Nature of the Case: Application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of a divorce case from Family Court, Saharsa to Family Court, Muzaffarpur
Date of Judgment: 16.01.2026
Link to Judgment: http://Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTAjMTIyNCMyMDIzIzEjTg==-mJurlP–ak1–3sqk=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
