1 2025:CGHC:17740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 38 of 2025 1 - Smt. Rashmi Kispotta W/o Aseem Kullu, D/o Apolnius Kispotta Aged About 39 Years R/o- Galaxy Island, Vidhansabha Road, Behind A.G. Office, Raipur, District- And Tahsil- Raipur ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Aseem Kullu S/o Shri Nestor Kullu Aged About 38 Years R/o- Hig- 345, Sardar Vallabhai Patel Nagar, Saada Colony, Jamnipali, Tarri, Tahsil- Tarri, District- Korba ( C.G. ). ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Simran Kaur Luthra alongwith Ms. Dyna Bajrang and Ms. Cheta Sharma, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Beck, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 17/04/2025 Heard. 1. Petitioner / wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No. 81-A/2024 (Aseem Kullu Vs. Smt. Rashmi Kispotta) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, Distt. Korba to Family Court, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / wife submits that marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/ wife on 28.12.2013. 2 They have been blessed with one male child, aged about 7 years at present. After about 7 years living together, some dispute arose between the parties, therefore, they are living separately since 2020, as such, the petitioner/wife is residing alongwith her parents at Raipur with her seven year old son. It is further submitted that the petitioner / wife has filed one maintenance case bearing Case No. 156 of 2025 and one application under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 bearing Case No. OMA/35/24 before Family Court, Raipur, though which was dismissed, but the application has already been filed for restoration of the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that the respondent/ husband filed an application under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, 1969 before Family Court, Katghora, District Korba bearing Civil Suit No. 81-A/2024 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). She further submits that distance between Katghora, District Korba to Raiput is more than 400 kms. to and fro, being mother of minor child aged about 7 years, it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to go to Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, Distt. Korba to attend the hearing of aforesaid case. It is next contended that the since aforesaid two cases filed by the petitioner/wife are already pending before Family Court, Raipur, therefore, it would not be inconvenient to the respondent/husband, if aforesaid divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. 81-A/2024 is transferred from Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, Distt. Korba to Family Court, Raipur, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and Civil Suit No. 81-A/2024 pending before Family Court, Camp Court Katghora, District Korba may be transferred to Family Court, Raipur. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband has no objection in allowing the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner/wife. 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 aforesaid two cases filed by the petitioner / wife in respect of both the parties are pending before the Family Court, Raipur, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if divorce case bearing Civil Suit No.81-A/2024 filed by respondent / husband before the Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District Korba be transferred to Family Court, Raipur, rather it would not cause any difficulty for the husband, as he has to go in the hearing of aforesaid two cases filed by the petitioner/wife in the Family Court, Raipur. 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 Civil Suit No. 81-A / 2024 (Aseem Kullu vs. Smt. Rashmi Kispotta) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District Korba be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Family Court, Katghora, District Korba is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Raipur within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that that Family Court, Raipur 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. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.23 11:00:21 +0530 5 ({JUDGE_NAME}) JUDGE PSName