If a Section 13 contested divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been transferred between states, whether under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the other party has since failed to respond or participate before the receiving court, understanding what genuinely happens to your case in this specific situation is important.

Once a transfer order is passed by the Supreme Court, discussed extensively in relation to how transfer petitions operate generally, your case, along with all its existing records and pending applications, is formally transmitted to the specific receiving court identified in the transfer order, and the case continues from this point onward before this new court, generally without requiring the proceedings to entirely restart from the beginning, though this can depend somewhat on the specific stage the case had reached at the time of transfer.

If the party who did not seek or agree to the transfer, typically the respondent in the underlying case, subsequently fails to appear or respond before this new, receiving court, it is genuinely important to understand that this specific circumstance is treated under the same general procedural framework applicable to any non-appearance, meaning the receiving court would need to first confirm that this party has been properly and validly notified of the case's new status and the specific hearing dates before this new court, since proper notice of this transfer, and the case's continuation before the new court, remains an essential procedural requirement.

If proper notice of the transfer and the case's continued proceedings before the new court has genuinely been given, and the party still fails to appear or respond, the receiving court can proceed with the matter, potentially declaring it ex parte following the same general principles discussed extensively throughout this broader discussion of ex-parte proceedings, allowing the petitioner to present their evidence and the court to reach its decision based on this evidence, provided this properly establishes the specific alleged ground.

If the non-responding party genuinely was not properly notified of the case's transfer to this new court, this specific procedural gap would provide them with a strong basis to later challenge any resulting ex-parte decree, similar to the position discussed in relation to a divorce petition proceeding ex-parte due to an incorrectly stated address, meaning it is genuinely important for the petitioner and their advocate to ensure this specific notice regarding the transfer is properly and thoroughly documented.

If the party's non-response appears to reflect a deliberate choice not to engage with the proceedings following the transfer, perhaps reflecting continued resistance to the underlying transfer itself, it is worth understanding that this does not provide them with any specific additional protection or delay mechanism beyond the ordinary rules applicable to non-appearance, since the transfer having been properly and validly ordered by the Supreme Court is a final and binding determination regarding the appropriate jurisdiction, and continued non-participation simply results in the case proceeding without their input, following the ordinary ex-parte framework.

If you are the party who successfully sought the transfer, and are now the petitioner proceeding before this new court given the other party's continued non-response, it is worth ensuring your advocate properly and comprehensively documents this history, including the transfer order itself and evidence of proper notice given to the other party regarding the case's continuation, since this documentation becomes important both for the court's own confidence in proceeding ex-parte, and for protecting the ultimate finality of your resulting decree against any future challenge.

Given how genuinely important it is to properly navigate this specific combination of a transferred case and a non-responding party, it is essential to consult an experienced advocate to ensure your case proceeds correctly and the resulting outcome remains properly protected. You can reach out via Aapka Legal Advice for guidance on properly navigating your transferred Section 13 divorce case given the other party's continued non-response.

You can review Top Divorce Lawyers in India | Aapka Legal Advice for relevant experience handling transferred matrimonial cases.

Many people find real value in obtaining an independent, experienced perspective from the panel of retired judges available through certain legal consultation platforms.

If formal legal representation is required, engaging an experienced advocate will ensure your transferred case proceeds correctly despite the other party's non-response.

In summary, when a Section 13 divorce case is transferred between states and the other party does not respond before the receiving court, the case generally proceeds under the ordinary ex-parte framework, provided proper notice of the transfer and the case's continuation has genuinely been given to this non-responding party, allowing the petitioner to present their evidence and the court to reach its decision, though this notice requirement remains genuinely important to properly document to ensure the ultimate finality of the resulting decree is not later successfully challenged.