1 2025:CGHC:17316 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 51 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sanjita Das W/o Shri Sudarshan Das Aged About 25 Years By Caste- Kayasth (Hindu), R/o P.V. 116, Ward No. 15, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Udaynagar, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Defendant) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sudarshan Das S/o Late Shri Khitij Das, Aged About 36 Years, By Caste- Kayasth (Hindu), R/o P.V. 116, Ward No. 15, Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. (Plaintiff) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, 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 Civil Suit HMA/22-A/2022 (Sudarshan Das Vs. Smt. Sanjita Das) pending before District Court, Pakhanjur to Family Court, Kanker (C.G.). 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 10.12.2017 as per custom prevailing in their Society. They have been blessed with a male child, aged about 5 ½ years at present. It is submitted that due to harrassment meted out to the petitioner/wife by the respondent/husband, she has been compelled to live apart from his company, therefore, petitioner/wife along with her minor child is residing alongwith her parents at Kanker. It is next submitted that respondent / husband has filed an application under Section 13 (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce from the petitioner/wife before Additional District Judge, Bhanupratapur, District North Bastar Kanker against the petitioner/wife, but distance between Pankhajur to Kaker is 250 kms. to and fro, being mother of 5 ½ years minor child, it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to go to Bhanupratppur to attend the hearing of aforesaid case, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and Civil Suit No. HMA 22-A/2022 pending before District Judge, Pakhanjur may be transferred to Family Court, Kanker, Distt. North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband submits that though distance between Pakhanjur & Kanker is 250 kms to and from but there is direct bus connectivity between these two places. He submits that the petitioner/wife is already appearing in said case in the Court at Bhanupratappur, therefore, in the fact situation of the case, the transfer petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the fact that distance between Pakhanjur to Kanker is about 250 kms. to and fro, being mother of 5 ½ years child, it 3 would be difficult for petitioner/wife to travel from Pakhanjur to Kanker to attend the hearing of aforesaid civil suit. 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. 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. 4 9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Case No. Civil Suit No. 22-A/2022 (Sudarshan Das Vs. Smt. Sanjita Das) pending before District Court, Pakhanjur be transferred to the Family Court, Kankerfor its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The District Judge, Pakhanjur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Kanker within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that that Family Court, Kanker 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. Interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.21 10:59:14 +0530