Wife’s convenience not an automatic ground for case transfer: HC

Reaffirming the principles of fair trial and judicial balance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a wife’s convenience is important, but it does not automatically justify transferring matrimonial cases. Rejecting a plea to move a maintenance case from Mohali to Barnala, Justice Sumeet Goel stated that general complaints of inconvenience or a change in residence were not enough for such requests.

Justice Goel asserted a plea for a trial’s transfer was, more often than not, primarily based upon the convenience of parties or witnesses. The law permitted transfer of trial for general convenience of parties or witnesses, but the high court’s “transfer jurisdiction” was required to be exercised sparingly.

“Ordinarily, the proceedings ought to be undertaken at its jurisdictional place as prescribed by law. The convenience of a party/witness ought not to be given a very liberal meaning lest it causes easy shifting of trial. The high court must exercise caution to ensure that the threshold for such transfers is not set too low, thereby preventing the justice system from being manipulated by baseless requests that could hinder the fair and efficient administration of justice,” Justice Goel asserted.

The court added convenience was required to be adjudged on the touchstone of relative ease and difficulties of all the parties concerned. The wife’s convenience in transfer requests was generally given priority due to the socio-economic realities of society in matrimonial cases, such as divorce or maintenance petitions under Section 125 of the CrPC or Section 144 of the BNSS. Undoubtedly, a party’s convenience, particularly the wife’s, was a determining factor.

Justice Goel added the key principle for transferring trials or proceedings in such matters was whether the shifting would serve the ends of justice. The courts were required evaluate factors such as the financial status of both parties, their social background, behavior, and overall circumstances, including their means of livelihood and support system.

“Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. Though it is a paramount factor for consideration for transfer of matrimonial related proceedings, but the same is not a matter of absolute right bestowed upon the wife. Where the petition is instituted at the instance of the wife herself, cogent reasons are required to be shown for transfer thereof”.

Justice Goel added generic excuses would not suffice and might be rejected. A wife in a transferable job could not repeatedly seek case transfers based on her relocations. The courts must ensure that such requests were not granted automatically or without justification.

Courts often took a practical approach to ease the wife’s hardship, such as commuting difficulties or care giving responsibilities, by transferring the trial location, Justice Goel said, adding this was a concession to expedite proceedings, not a right.