In Priyanka Maheshwari v. Vaibhav Maheshwari, Allahabad HC dismissed wife's transfer application seeking transfer of husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights u/s 9 Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Aligarh, to Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar.

Court held that while convenience of wife and welfare of minor child are relevant considerations, they do not automatically justify transfer u/s 24 CPC unless refusal would result in failure of justice.

Applicant-wife contended that she was residing in Gautam Budh Nagar as primary caregiver of her minor daughter, who was studying there. She argued that repeated travel to Aligarh would impose financial hardship and inconvenience and adversely affect her daughter's education and welfare. She further submitted that maintenance petition was already pending before Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar, and transfer of proceedings would avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure effective adjudication.

Husband opposed transfer, arguing that both wife's parental and maternal homes were situated in Aligarh and transfer plea was intended only to delay proceedings. He pointed out that restitution proceedings had remained stalled because of pending transfer application and interim protection granted by High Court.

High Court observed that burden lies on applicant to establish, through cogent and convincing material, that continuation of proceedings before original court would result in genuine hardship or failure of justice.

Rejecting contention that child's education alone justified transfer, Court found that wife failed to demonstrate that attending proceedings in Aligarh was impracticable or that it would effectively deprive her of opportunity to contest case.

On argument regarding pending maintenance proceedings, Court held that mere existence of connected litigation before another court was not sufficient to warrant transfer.

Court clarified, "Provision is not intended to facilitate forum shopping or to permit litigant to seek transfer merely because another forum may be comparatively more convenient."

Applying these principles, Court concluded that wife had failed to establish any genuine hardship or compelling inconvenience warranting transfer. It held that child's schooling and pendency of maintenance proceedings, though relevant, did not outweigh husband's right to continue proceedings before forum lawfully chosen by him.

Accordingly, Allahabad HC dismissed transfer application, holding that no case for transfer had been made out. It vacated interim order and directed Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, to proceed with matrimonial proceedings expeditiously.