Ekta Vaish v. Deepak Kuchbandiya, 2026
It provides a practical framework for courts to handle personal inconvenience without disrupting ongoing proceedings.
Judgement Details
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
20 February 2026
Judges
Justice Deepak Khot
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner, Ekta Vaish (wife), filed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC seeking the transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights case filed by her husband before the Family Court, Narsinghpur.
-
The wife contended that the distance between Harda and Narsinghpur exceeded 300 km, making travel difficult and unsafe.
-
She argued that her personal convenience should be the paramount consideration for transfer.
-
The husband opposed the transfer, citing availability of alternatives like video conferencing and compensatory travel arrangements.
-
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that transfer petitions should not be routinely allowed merely for the inconvenience of a spouse.
Issues
-
Whether convenience of wife is still the sole or paramount consideration for deciding a transfer petition in matrimonial disputes?
-
Whether modern alternatives, such as video conferencing, can effectively replace the need for physical transfer of proceedings?
-
Whether travel, lodging, and boarding expenses can be used as compensatory measures for personal inconvenience?
-
Whether a transfer petition can be denied if the petitioner has previously appeared in the court and filed other cases in the same jurisdiction?
Judgement
-
The Court observed that the convenience of the wife/lady is no longer the paramount consideration in transfer petitions.
-
Alternatives are available, such as:
-
Conducting proceedings via video conferencing
-
Compensation for travel, lodging, and boarding expenses of the parties
-
-
The personal presence of parties is generally required only at the stage of conciliation and evidence.
-
The Court noted that the petitioner had filed two FIRs in Narsinghpur and had previously traveled there, weakening her claim of inconvenience.
-
The Court held that transfer cannot be routinely granted solely based on personal inconvenience.
-
Directions given:
-
The petitioner may appear before the Family Court, Narsinghpur, through video conferencing.
-
The petitioner shall attend the Court physically only for her examination on the date fixed.
-
The respondent (husband) shall bear travel, lodging, and boarding expenses for her appearance.
-
The Family Court, Narsinghpur is directed to fix the date for examination and ensure compliance with these arrangements.
-
Held
-
Personal convenience of a spouse is no longer the sole or paramount consideration in deciding transfer petitions under Section 24 CPC.
-
Video conferencing provides a viable alternative to physical transfer of proceedings.
-
Travel, lodging, and boarding expenses can be adjusted to accommodate inconvenience.
-
Transfer petitions should not be routinely allowed merely on the basis of personal inconvenience.
-
Courts may allow physical presence selectively, especially for examination or critical hearings, while using modern technological facilities to reduce hardship.
Analysis
-
Modernizes the approach to transfer petitions in matrimonial disputes.
-
Balances convenience of parties with judicial efficiency and avoidance of unnecessary transfers.
-
Encourages the use of technology (video conferencing) to reduce physical travel and litigation costs.
-
Provides a practical framework for courts to handle personal inconvenience without disrupting ongoing proceedings.
-
Upholds Supreme Court principles that transfer of cases should not be automatic based on distance or inconvenience alone.
-
Ensures equitable treatment: petitioner’s convenience is accommodated through compensation, not transfer.