1 2025:CGHC:24904 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 41 of 2025 1 - Smt. Babita Patel W/o Lakhan Patel Aged About 31 Years D/o Niranjan Patel, Occupation Unemployed, R/o Village Putkapuri, Tahsil Pussore, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - Lakhan Lal Patel S/o Onkar Patel Aged About 41 Years (Wrongly Mention In Order Sheet As Lakhan Patel), Occupation - Station House Officer, R/o Madhuban Para, Modipara, Raigarh, Tashil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o S.H.O., Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/Non-Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order On Board 17/06/2025 1. Heard. 2. The Applicant/wife has filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), 1908 for transfer of Civil Suit No.HMA/1180/2024 (Lakhan Lal Patel versus Smt. Babita Patel) pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) to the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife would submit that marriage of RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.06.18 10:36:18 +0530 2 applicant/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 25.05.2010 as per the Hindu customs and rituals. They have blessed with a female child; namely Ku. Purva on 10.06.2011 and presently residing along with respondent/husband, however, without any reason, respondent/husband has abandoned applicant/wife, therefore, she is residing along with her brother at village Putkapuri, District Raigarh since about 1 year. He would further submit that respondent/husband has filed divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.HMA/1180/2024 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereas applicant/wife has filed maintenance application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Raigarh. Learned counsel further submitted that distance between Raigarh and Raipur is about 275 km and being a lady, it would be difficult for her to travel such long distance, whereas if divorce petition is transferred from Raipur to Raigarh, then it would be convenient for respondent /husband also as he has already come to Raigarh to attend hearing in aforesaid maintenance case, therefore, it is prayed that application may be allowed and Civil Suit No.HMA/1180/2024 (divorce petition) filed by respondent/husband be transferred from the Family Court, Raipur (CG) to the Family Court, Raigarh (CG). 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that there is direct train connectivity between Raigarh and Raipur, as such, she may travel between said two places, hence, application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 6. Having considered the fact that, to and fro distance between Raigarh and Raipur is about 550 km, as such, being a lady it would be difficult for the 3 applicant/wife to attend hearing in divorce petition at Family Court, Raipur, whereas maintenance case is already pending against the respondent/husband before the Family Court, Raigarh, therefore if civil suit (divorce petition) filed by respondent/husband is transferred from the Family Court, Raipur to the Family Court, Raigarh, then it would be convenient for respondent also to attend hearing at the same place in both the cases. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at para 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, as discussed in preceding 4 paragraphs 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.HMA/1180/2024 (Lakhan Lal Patel versus Smt. Babita Patel) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) be transferred to the Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 11. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid Civil Suit No.HMA/1180/2024 to the Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of a 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. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar