A Wife can Ask the Court to Move Matrimonial Case Closer to Home…

“Yes” as the law recognizes that access to justice must be practical, not merely theoretical.

As a woman already tormented by the pain of a matrimonial dispute, picture yourself travelling to a city hundred or even thousands of kilometers away from where you live, just to contest a matrimonial case. That too a place where you may have no family or support in case of any emergency.

Add to that you already persisting issues of financial dependence, childcare, illness, employment etc., and under such circumstances, contesting a case far away from your home. It sure is bound to turn a legal proceeding into a disproportionate burden which is bound to make you think: “Should I just accept the fate and suffer an unwanted defeat”.

Are you required to undergo this torture simply because the case was filed at a place far from where you reside?

One word answer - No. You have the right to bring the fight where you want to fight it, where you are more comfortable and better supported and represented, not where the case has already been filed by your husband.

Indian law provides a mechanism through which you can approach the Supreme Court of India seeking transfer of the matrimonial proceedings when you know that your circumstances justify such a transfer.

What does the law say?

The Supreme Court has the power to transfer a suit, appeal or other proceeding from a court in one State to a court in another State when such transfer is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

In matrimonial matters, the Supreme Court has repeatedly considered the convenience and genuine difficulties of the wife while deciding transfer petitions.

This, however, is not an automatic right. The Court considers the facts and circumstances of each case.

Why is the wife's convenience given importance?

A matrimonial proceeding can impose a substantial practical burden on the wife who has to contest the case.

Where a wife is living in another city, has limited financial resources, is responsible for children or has no support at the place where the case is pending, repeated travel can make participation in the proceedings considerably more difficult.

In Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001), the Supreme Court considered the difficulty faced by a wife who was residing and working in Delhi while matrimonial proceedings were pending in Bihar, approximately 1,100 km away. The Court transferred the proceedings to Delhi.

The case became an important reference point in matrimonial transfer jurisprudence: the practical difficulty faced by the wife in attending proceedings is a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate forum.

However, it is not only about distance.

A transfer petition is not decided merely by counting kilometers.

The Court may consider circumstances such as:

• financial dependence or inability to bear repeated travel expenses;
• responsibility for minor children;
• pregnancy or childcare responsibilities;
• serious medical conditions;
• employment commitments;
• absence of family or social support;
• frequency and nature of required appearances; and
• the overall circumstances affecting effective participation in the proceedings.

The underlying consideration is whether requiring the party to continue litigating at the existing place would create a genuine and substantial hardship.

Recent developments

The principle continues to be applied in recent Supreme Court matrimonial transfer proceedings.

In 2025, the Supreme Court allowed transfer of a matrimonial proceeding from Bulandshahr to Saket, Delhi in Reena Nagar v. Vivek Kumar. In another 2025 matter, Sandhya v. Lavkush Mishra, the Court allowed transfer of proceedings from Sultanpur to Saket, Delhi.

These recent cases demonstrate that matrimonial transfer petitions remain a practical remedy where the facts establish genuine hardship.

What should a woman establish in a transfer petition?

A strong transfer petition should explain the hardship with specific facts and supporting material, rather than simply stating that the existing forum is inconvenient.

For example:

• Financial hardship: income, employment, leaves required from work, inability to bear repeated travel expenses, hotel expenses etc.
• Medical hardship: medical records and treatment documents.
• Childcare: age, custody and schooling details of children.
• Travel hardship: distance, travel time and frequency of hearings.
• Lack of support: circumstances showing why attending proceedings in the existing forum would be particularly difficult.

The focus should be on demonstrating why the hardship is real, substantial and relevant to access to justice.

A transfer petition will serve as an important safeguard against that burden.

Because access to justice should not depend on whether a person can afford to travel hundreds of kilometers simply to be heard.

That's not favoritism. That's fairness.

By Aparna Dixit

Intern | Navit Bansal and Partners LLP