The Allahabad High Court held that when matrimonial case transfer is not opposed by husband and wife, the detailed “convenience test” loses relevance. Consent itself operates as waiver of forum rights, streamlining procedure and limiting unnecessary litigation pressure on parties.
ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad High Court has clarified an important legal position in matrimonial disputes, especially relevant for men facing prolonged and unnecessary litigation. The case involved a divorce petition filed by the husband, which the wife later sought to transfer to another district.
The matter was decided by Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, who examined a transfer application filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The wife had asked for the transfer of the divorce case from the Family Court at Meerut to the Family Court at Baghpat, citing personal inconvenience.
At the very outset, the Court noted a crucial fact: the husband clearly stated that he had “instructions from the opposite party, not to oppose the present application for transfer.” This single statement changed the entire legal balance of the case.
While explaining the law, the Court observed that:
“Section 24 CPC confers a wide and discretionary jurisdiction upon the High Court and the District Court to transfer or withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding at any stage.”
The purpose of this power, the Court said, is to ensure fairness, reduce hardship, and secure proper administration of justice.
The judge acknowledged the general legal principle that:
“Ordinarily the plaintiff, being dominus litis, has the right to choose the forum of institution.” However, the Court was equally clear that “this right is not absolute.” The judgment explained that Section 24 CPC is an exception that allows courts to override this choice when justice demands it.
A key part of the ruling focused on consent. The Court clearly stated that:
“Nothing in the provision prohibits the Court from ordering transfer where both parties agree or where the opposite party raises no objection.”
Justice Srivastava further explained that
“Where the parties are ad idem on the question of transfer, the need for a detailed comparative examination of balance of convenience stands considerably diluted.”
In simple terms, when both sides agree, courts need not waste time debating who is more inconvenienced.
Importantly, the Court held that “the plaintiff’s right as dominus litis is deemed to have been voluntarily waived.”
This observation protects men from later claims that their legal rights were forcibly taken away when, in fact, they consciously chose not to contest the transfer.
The judgment also noted that:
“A consensual transfer, in such circumstances, ordinarily advances the interest of justice, avoids procedural contest, and facilitates expeditious adjudication.”
This is a crucial reminder that cooperation between parties can reduce litigation stress, costs, and delay.
While discussing matrimonial cases in general, the Court reiterated the established position that “the ‘balance of convenience’ is the primary yardstick” under Section 24 CPC. It also observed that courts have often held that “the convenience of the wife must be afforded priority.” However, in this case, the deciding factor was not gender but consent and absence of opposition.
Finally, the Court concluded that:
“When transfer is sought and is not opposed, and the Court finds no legal impediment, such transfer would clearly subserve the ends of justice.”
On this reasoning, the transfer application was allowed, and the divorce case was moved from Meerut to Baghpat with directions for speedy disposal.
This judgment reinforces that consent matters, procedural rights can be voluntarily waived, and courts will not manufacture disputes where none exist. It also shows that cooperative legal conduct by men is recognised and respected by constitutional courts.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law, Sections & Provisions | Purpose (In Short) | How Applied in This Case |
| Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 24 | Empowers courts to transfer cases to ensure justice and avoid hardship | Divorce case transferred after husband gave no objection |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 | Provides legal grounds for seeking divorce. | Husband filed divorce petition under this provision |
| Principle of Dominus Litis (Procedural Law Concept) | Recognises the plaintiff’s right to choose the court, subject to legal exceptions. | The Court held that the husband’s forum choice was voluntarily waived once he did not oppose the transfer. |
| Doctrine of Consent in Procedural Matters | Consent of parties removes procedural objections and limits detailed scrutiny. | Since the husband did not oppose, the Court treated the transfer as consensual and skipped detailed convenience analysis. |
| Balance of Convenience (Judicial Test) | Used by courts to decide transfer applications by weighing inconvenience or hardship to parties. | The Court observed that when parties are ad idem on transfer, the balance-of-convenience test becomes diluted, and consent itself becomes a decisive factor. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Smt. Arju @ Vimal vs. Umakant Parasar
- Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
- Case Number: Transfer Application (Civil) No. 1027 of 2023
- Date of Judgment: 30 January 2026
- Original Case Sought to be Transferred: Divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the Family Court, Meerut.
- Transferred To: Principal Judge, Family Court, Baghpat
- Counsels:
- For Applicant (Wife): Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh
- For Opposite Party (Husband): Sri Awadh Narain Rai
Key Takeaways
- When a husband clearly states “no objection” to transfer, the court treats it as voluntary consent and his right to choose the forum is legally considered waived.
- Courts will not prolong litigation by forcing a balance-of-convenience debate once both parties are on the same page regarding transfer.
- Section 24 CPC is meant to reduce harassment through procedural battles, not to be used as a pressure tool once consent is already given.
- Cooperative conduct by men in matrimonial cases is judicially recognised and cannot later be misrepresented as coercion or unfair advantage.
- Justice lies in efficiency and fairness, not in dragging men through multiple courts after they have agreed to a reasonable procedural request.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.