1 2025:CGHC:17315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 36 of 2025 1 - Smt. Anchal Namdev W/o Vimal Namdev Aged About 25 Years Presently R/o Bajrang Chowk, Near Station, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazaar Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Vimal Namdev S/o Late Kamlesh Namdev Aged About 35 Years R/o Block No. 65, Shivanand Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 15/04/2025 Heard. 1. Petitioner / wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Case No. HMA/1040 / 2024 (Vimal Namdev Vs. Smt. Anchal Namdev) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to Family Court, Baloda Bazaar (C.G.) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 06.02.2024 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals at Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.). They 2 have been blessed with a male child, aged about 4 months at present. It is submitted that because of harassment meted out to the petitioner/wife by the respondent/ husband physically and mentally, she has been compelled to live apart from his company, therefore, the petitioner/wife along with her minor child is residing alongwith her parents at Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar. It is next submitted that respondent / husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 of Restitution of Conjugal Rights bearing HMA/1040/24 before Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur against the petitioner/wife, but distance between Raipur to Baloda Bazar is about 170 kms. to and fro, being mother of 4 month minor child, it would be difficult for the petitioner to go to Raipur to attend the hearing of aforesaid case. It is next contended that the one maintenance case bearing bearing M.Cr.C. No. 273 / 2024 filed by petitioner/wife is already pending at Family Court, Baloda Bazar against the respondent / husband, therefore, it would not be inconvenient to the respondent/husband, if aforesaid divorce petition is transferred from Family Court, Raipur to Family Court, Baloda Bazar, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and HMA No. 1040/2024 pending before Family Court, Raipur may be transferred to Family Court, Baloda Bazar (C.G.) 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband submits that distance between Dhamtari to Raipur is only 85 kms and there is direct bus connectivity between these two places, therefore, it would not be difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel from Baloda Bazar to Raipur to attend the hearing of aforesaid divorce case, therefore, transfer petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 5. The ground taken for the transfer of divorce case is that one maintenance case filed by the petitioner / wife in respect of both the parties are pending before the Court at Baloda Bazar, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if divorce case bearing Case No. HMA/1040/24 filed by respondent / husband before the Family Court, Raipur, be transferred to Family Court, Baloda Bazar, rather it would not cause any difficulty for the husband, as he has to go in the hearing of one maintenance case filed by the petitioner/wife in the Family Court, Baloda Bazar. 6. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held 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.” 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh -v- Kumar Sanjay and another [(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 -v- Kishore Babulal Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. 4 8. Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of his order and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforecited cases; it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Case No. HMA/1040 / 2024 (Vimal Namdev Vs. Smt. Anchal Namdev) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur be transferred to the Family Court, Baloda Bazar for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Baloda Bazar within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that that Family Court, Baloda Bazar shall expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. 11. In view of above order, pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/-