1 2025:CGHC:5519 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 76 of 2024 Pooja Vishwakarma W/o Ankur Vishwakarma Aged About 30 Years R/o H.N.- 61, Near Hanuman Temple, Hanuman Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Aman Singh, Front Of Laxmi Provisions Store, Hari Nagar, P.S.- Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner versus Ankur Vishwakarma S/o Ramesh Vishwakarma Aged About 32 Years R/o Jagdamba Chowk, Pratapganjpara, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent ____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Praveen K. Tulsyan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/01/2025 1. Petitioner (wife) has filed this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the Divorce Case No.10-A/2024 (Ankur Vishwakarma Vs. Pooja Vishwakarma), pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur (C.G.) to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was married to respondent on 30.01.2020 at Durg, District – Durg as per Hindu rites. Few days of marriage, things went on smoothly, however after sometime, dispute BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.01 16:01:53 +0530 2 arose between the parties due to which petitioner left her matrimonial home, she is presently residing with her parents at Durg. Respondent (husband) filed an application under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur for dissolution of marriage, which was registered as Divorce Case No.10-A of 2024, in which notice was issued to petitioner (wife). Petitioner (wife) has also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against respondent before Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, which is registered as MJC No.458 of 2024 and is pending consideration. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is presently residing in her maternal home at Durg. Respondent (husband) has filed an application under Section 13 (1) (i a) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Jagdalpur in order to harass and torture the petitioner. The distance of Jagdalpur is about 340 KM from her present place of residence and it will be very difficult for her to travel such long distance for attending the court proceedings. Parents of the petitioner are elderly one, and there are no other family members available to accompany her to attend the court proceedings at Jagdalpur. It is contended that petitioner has also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Durg, in which respondent has also caused his appearance, therefore, Divorce Case No.10-A/2024, pending before the Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) may be transferred to the Family Court at Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that respondent is the sole caretaker of his old aged parents, who are suffering with age related health issues. The respondent is employed in Lohandiguda which is 40 KM away from where his parents live and in case of emergency he can reach them quickly. It is very difficult for respondent to take leave for attending the court proceedings in every hearing. There is no other family members available to care of his old aged parents if he is unavailable. It is submitted that the Family Court in Jagdalpur is fully equipped with electronic facilities and petitioner can appear before the Family Court, Jagdalpur through video conferencing and also seek assistance from the Legal Aid Committee. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that respondent married to petitioner in the year 2020 as per Hindu rituals and customs and due to some dispute between the parties, petitioner is living in her parent’s house at Durg. Petitioner has also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, before the Family Court, Durg, in which respondent has caused his appearance. 7. The grounds taken by petitioner for transfer of the Divorce Case No.10-A/2024 is that application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner against respondent is pending before the Family Court, Durg, where petitioner wife is residing. The distance of Jagdalpur is 340 Km. from Durg. Petitioner being the lady and there is no other 4 male member to accompany her, therefore it would be very difficult for her in travelling from Durg to Jagdalpur to attend the court proceedings. 8. Convenience of the wife to attend the case is also one of the consideration at the time of deciding transfer petition. On the other hand as per documents placed on record, the respondent is already appearing before the Court at Durg in the proceedings filed by petitioner against him. Therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if the case filed by respondent/husband seeking decree of divorce is transferred from the Family Court Jagdalpur, District Bastar to Family Court, Durg it would not cause any difficulty to respondent/husband, as he is already appearing before the Family Court at Durg in the proceedings filed by petitioner/wife. He can submit appropriate application for hearing of both the cases on same date. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, 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 5 paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Vs. 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 Vs 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; in the opinion of this Court it is a fit case for transfer of the case as prayed for by petitioner/wife. 12. Accordingly, this transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Divorce Case No.10-A/2024 (Ankur Vishwakarma Vs. Pooja Vishwakarma), pending before the Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar shall be transferred to the Family Court, Durg, District Durg. 13. The Family Court, Jagdalpur is directed to transfer the record of the above case to the Family Court, Durg forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg on 24.02.2025. 14. The learned Family Court Durg will make all endevours to conclude the proceedings of the case at the earliest subject to cooperation by the parties. 6 15. Registry of this Court is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Family Court Jagdalpur, District Bastar for necessary action and compliance. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram