1 2025:CGHC:15527 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 33 of 2025 • Smt. Suman Priya Victor, W/o Shabi Victor, Aged About 29 Years, R/o House No.144, Vardhaman Nagar Bemcha, Police Station, Tahsil & District Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus • Shabi Victor, S/o Late Shri Prabhat Kumar Victor, Aged About 35 Years, R/o House No.987, Sinkola Basti, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 02/04/2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner/wife has filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for transfer of divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.29/2025 (Shabi Victor Versus Smt. Suman Priya Victor) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) to the Principal Judge, Family Court Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 10.09.2021 as per the Christian rites and rituals. They have been blessed with a boy child aged about 1 year and 6 months at present. Thereafter, respondent/husband and his mother started harassing petitioner/wife physically & mentally, as such, AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK 2 she has been compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 03.10.2024 and since then she is residing at her parental place. He further submitted that petitioner has filed the application under Section 144(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of maintenance against the respondent before the Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.), which is pending consideration, but respondent has filed the divorce petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) bearing Civil Suit No.29/2025. It is further submitted that distance between Durg and Mahasamund is about 220 Kms up-down and being a mother of minor child, it would be difficult for petitioner to travel from Mahasamund to Durg. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the divorce case may be transferred from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) to the Principal Judge, Family Court Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.). 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that petitioner/wife is a well educated young lady, who can travel from Durg to Mahasamund, therefore, this petition may be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 6. Petitioner/wife is said to be a mother of minor child aged about 1 year and 6 months and the distance between Mahasamund and Durg is said to be about 220 kms, therefore, ofcourse, it would be difficult for the petitioner to travel such a long distance along with her minor child. On the other hand, since one case for grant of maintenance is already pending before the Family Court Mahasamund, in which, respondent has to go to attend the hearing at Mahasamund, therefore, it would be convenient for respondent also, if civil suit is transferred from Durg to Mahasamund. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana 3 Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at paras 9 which reads as under:- "9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another reported in 2001 10 SCC 41 has observed that if husband files suit against wife, then convenience of wife must be looked into. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishore Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, also considering the distance between aforesaid two places and further considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's convenience must be looked into, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 10. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No.29/2025 (Shabi Victor Versus Smt. Suman Priya Victor) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) be 4 transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 11. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.29/2025 to the Principal Judge, Family Court Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. It is further observed that after receiving the case on transfer, the transferred Court is directed to consider and decide the case as early as possible, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferring Court. 12. In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-