Husband files case to force wife to live with him. She asks to move it closer. He doesn't show up.

He wanted the court to order her to come back. She asked to move the case 500 km closer. He didn't even bother to show up.

When the Supreme Court called Poonam Ankur Pawar v. Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar on a July morning in 2023, the courtroom fell silent as the husband's name was called. No response. The bench waited. Nothing. The husband was absent — not just from the courtroom, but from the entire proceeding. He had been served notice of his wife's transfer petition. He chose silence. That silence, the Court ruled, was not harmless. It was a silence that spoke of what happens when one spouse refuses to engage in a case that demands two.

The question: Can a husband file a case to force his wife to live with him, then vanish when she asks to move it closer to her home? The Supreme Court said no. The reason lies in a civil procedure rule that can turn a decree of love into a warrant of arrest.

When the husband filed first

In early 2023, in Silvassa — the capital of Dadra & Nagar Haveli — a husband named Ankur Ashokbhai Pawar walked into the District Judge's court. He filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This is a petition for restitution of conjugal rights (a court order asking a spouse to resume living with the other). The file landed on the judge's desk, thin and unremarkable, carrying the weight of a marriage that had already frayed.

His wife, Poonam Ankur Pawar, lived in Ahmedabad, Gujarat — 500 kilometers away. She had not left him, the petition implied. She was simply not living with him. The law lets a spouse ask the court to "restore" the marriage by ordering the other to return.

But Poonam did not want to fight in Silvassa. She wanted the case moved to the Family Court in Ahmedabad, where she lived. She filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the provision that lets the Supreme Court shift a case from one court to another for the sake of justice). Her petition was accompanied by the travel receipts she had already accumulated — bus tickets, train fares, the cost of a woman moving between two cities to defend a marriage she had already left.

The husband's strategic silence

The husband was served notice. The process server's report, stamped and filed, confirmed delivery. The notice itself — a crisp legal document bearing the Supreme Court's seal — had reached him. He had every right to argue that Silvassa was the proper venue — perhaps he lived there, or the marriage had a connection to that place. He did not appear. He did not file a reply. He let the notice expire.

In most civil cases, a party's absence might be a tactical move — let the other side win a procedural battle while conserving resources for the main war. The Supreme Court saw something else. It was not a harmless absence. It was a refusal to engage in a proceeding that, by its nature, demands engagement.

The Court noted that non-participation in a restitution of conjugal rights proceeding is "not absolutely impactless." Those were the exact words the bench used — Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, sitting together on a July morning, the courtroom's air still and heavy with the weight of a case where one side had simply vanished. The impact comes from a specific rule buried in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Order XXI Rule 32 — the hidden hammer

Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC deals with enforcement of decrees for restitution of conjugal rights. It says: if a court passes a decree ordering a spouse to resume cohabitation, and that spouse refuses, the court can do something drastic. It can attach the disobeying spouse's property. Or detain them in civil prison until they comply.

Think about what that means. A husband who files a restitution case asks the court to order his wife to come back. If the court grants that order and she refuses, the court can seize her bank accounts, her jewellery, her house — or send her to jail until she agrees to live with him. The same applies if the wife wins and the husband refuses.

This is not theoretical. Order XXI Rule 32 is a real enforcement mechanism. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, took cognizance of this very provision. The Court noted that the rule provides for "enforcement of decrees for restitution" — a phrase that carries the cold weight of a legal hammer. That is why the Supreme Court took the husband's absence seriously. By not participating in the transfer petition, the husband was essentially saying: "I don't care where this case is heard." But the Court saw that his non-participation had consequences for his wife. If the case stayed in Silvassa, and if the husband eventually won a decree, his wife would face enforcement proceedings 500 kilometers from her home — in a court where she had no support, no lawyer on retainer, no familiarity.

The Court held that this risk — the risk of civil consequences under Order XXI Rule 32 — was a relevant factor in deciding whether to transfer the case. The bench did not merely gesture at the rule; it anchored its reasoning in it, making clear that a party's silence in a restitution proceeding is never neutral.

Why distance matters in matrimonial cases

The second factor was geography. The distance between Silvassa and Ahmedabad is 500 kilometers. For a woman living alone in Ahmedabad, traveling to Silvassa for every hearing means time, money, and risk. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife is a primary consideration. The rationale is simple: in most Indian families, the wife moves to the husband's home after marriage. If the marriage breaks down, she often returns to her parents' home. Asking her to travel back to the husband's city for every hearing is not just inconvenient — it can be financially and emotionally crushing.

The Court allowed the transfer. Hindu Marriage Petition No. 01/2023, pending before the District Judge of Dadra & Nagar Haveli at Silvassa, was moved to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ahmedabad. The Silvassa court was directed to send the entire case record expeditiously — a bundle of papers, affidavits, and orders that would now travel 500 kilometers south, following the wife who had already made the journey herself.

The procedural architecture

The case was filed as Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 973 of 2023. The petitioner-wife invoked Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which grants the Supreme Court the power to transfer any suit, appeal, or other proceeding from one High Court or civil court to another High Court or civil court. The provision is designed to ensure that justice is not defeated by geography, inconvenience, or harassment.

The underlying proceeding was a Hindu Marriage Petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act — restitution of conjugal rights. This section allows a spouse to petition the court when the other spouse has "withdrawn from the society" of the petitioner without reasonable excuse. If the court finds the withdrawal unjustified, it can decree that the other spouse resume cohabitation.

But the Supreme Court's judgment went beyond the simple question of venue. It engaged with Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC — a provision that is often overlooked in matrimonial litigation but carries enormous practical significance. The rule states that where a decree is for the specific performance of a contract, or for an injunction, or for restitution of conjugal rights, the court may enforce the decree by attachment of property or by detention in civil prison. In other words, a decree for restitution is not a mere suggestion — it is an order backed by the coercive power of the state.

The Court's reasoning was careful and deliberate. It noted that non-participation in a restitution proceeding is not "absolutely impactless" because of the civil consequences that flow from Order XXI Rule 32. This was not a throwaway observation. It was a considered interpretation of the law — one that recognizes that a spouse who ignores a restitution case does so at their own peril, and that a court deciding a transfer petition must take that peril into account.

What this means for you

For practitioners, this judgment is a reminder: a party's silence in a transfer petition is not a free pass. The Court will look at the underlying proceeding — here, a restitution case — and ask: what happens if the other side wins? If the answer involves civil consequences like attachment of property or arrest, the Court will factor that into its decision.

THE PLAY: If you are a spouse facing a restitution case in a distant court, file a transfer petition under Section 25 CPC and explicitly cite Order XXI Rule 32 — the risk of enforcement proceedings in a faraway court is a powerful ground for transfer.

For litigants, the message is equally clear. A restitution of conjugal rights case is not a symbolic gesture. It is a real legal proceeding with real consequences. A spouse who files such a case must be prepared to engage with it fully — including when the other side asks for a change of venue. Silence is not strategy. It is surrender.

THE TEST: Does your client understand that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights can be enforced by attachment of property or civil detention under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC? If not, they need to know — before they file, not after.

The husband never showed up. But the Court heard his silence anyway. And in that silence, the Court found a reason to move the case — not to punish the husband, but to protect the wife from a proceeding that, if left in a distant court, could have turned into a weapon of coercion rather than a tool of reconciliation.

WHAT THIS MEANS: The Supreme Court has clarified that non-participation in a restitution of conjugal rights proceeding carries real civil consequences. A party who ignores a transfer petition does so at their own risk — and the Court will weigh that risk when deciding where justice lies.

The file from Silvassa would now travel to Ahmedabad. The husband's silence would remain in the record, a permanent marker of a case where one side chose absence over engagement. The Court had done its work. The rest — the marriage, the reconciliation, the enforcement — would now unfold in a courtroom closer to the wife's home, in a city where she could face her husband's case without the added burden of a 500-kilometer journey.