1 2025:CGHC:45270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 50 of 2025 Smt. Pratima Verma W/o Shri Rupesh Kumar Verma C/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Parghaniya Aged About 35 Years R/o In Front Of Vossloh Beekey Casting Ltd. Rajeev Nagar Chhavni Ward No. 41, Bhilai Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) At Present R/o Sheetlapara Kanker Tahsil Kanker District - North Baster Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Rupesh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Pradeep Kumar Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 8-E Street No. 31, Steel Club Sector - 7 Civic Center Bhilai Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 04.9.2025 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.917/2024 (Rupesh Kumar Verma vs. Smt. Pratima Verma) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg to Family Court, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar, Kanker (CG). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 30.11.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs and out of their wedlock they have been blessed with two daughters, presently aged about 7 years and 2 ½ years BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.09.08 10:45:55 +0530 2 respectively. Within few years of their marriage, their relationship turned sour and in the year 2023, the petitioner was ousted by the respondent/husband and presently she is residing in Kanker along with her two minor children. Due to harassment of the respondent/husband, the petitioner/wife filed application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, bearing Criminal Case No.6569/2023. He would further submits that distance between Kanker and Durg is 130 Km and since the petitioner is residing with her minor children, it would be difficult for her to travel such distance to attend the Court proceedings at Durg. Hence, if the divorce petition bearing CS No.917/2024 filed by the respondent/husband before Family Court, Durg is transferred to Family Court, Kanker Distt. North Bastar Kanker, it would be convenient not only for the petitioner/wife, but also to the respondent/husband, as he can appear in both the cases in the Court of Kanker. Hence, it is prayed that present transfer petition may be allowed and Civil Suit No. 917/2024 be transferred from Family Court, Durg to Family Court, Kanker. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the transfer petition and submits that though the distance between Durg and Kanker is 130 Km, but there is frequent bus connectivity between these two places. Hence, the transfer petition may be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. 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 3 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.” 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 case 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. 7. As per the petitioner, Criminal Case No.6569/2023 is already pending against the respondent/husband before Family Court, Kanker and he has to attend that proceeding, hence, it would be convenient for the respondent/husband also if the divorce case bearing Civil Suit No.917/2024 is transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) to Family Court, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker (CG). 8. Considering the fact situation of the case and also 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. 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Civil Suit No.917/2024, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg be transferred to Family Court, Kanker Distt. North Bastar Kanker (CG) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Kanker, within a period of 15 days. 10. Further, the Family Court, Kanker is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the 4 date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. 11. In view of above order, pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini