1 2025:CGHC:23084 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 57 of 2025 Smt. Ispa Pandey W/o Tushar Pandey, D/o Late Gyanendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 36 Years R/o Chopra Para, Near Sanjeevani Hospital, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Tushar Pandey S/o Devnarayan Pandey Aged About 37 Years R/o Shaheed Bhagat Singh Ward, In Front Of Dena Bank, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 11/06/2025 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. H.M.A. /60/2025 (Tushar Pandey Vs. Smt. Ishpa Pandey) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner /wife would submit that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with respondent / husband on 2 14.05.2019 as per Hindu rites & rituals. They have been blessed with a female child, aged about 4 ½ years. Subsequently, their relations got so and petitioner / wife was compelled to leave the company of respondent / husband, therefore, she is residing alongwith her parents along with her minor daughter at Ambikapur, District Sarguja. He further submits that respondent husband has filed Divorce Petition bearing Civil Suit No. HMA 60/2025 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. It is contended that distance between Raipur to Ambikapur is 340 Kms., being mother of girl child, aged about 4 ½ years, it would be difficult for petitioner/wife to travel such long distance, hence, it is prayed that divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. HMA/60/2025 (Tushar Pandey vs. Ishpa Pandey) filed by respondent/husband be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/husband would submit that respondent / husband is low paid employee and if divorce petition filed by respondent husband is transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, then it would create financial hardship to the respondent/husband, hence, he prays that it may be transferred to the Family Court, Bilaspur, so that it can be convenient for both the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Undisputedly, distance between Raipur to Ambikapur is 340 kms. i.e. 680 kms. to and fro, being mother of minor child, aged about 4 ½ years, it would be naturally difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel from Ambikapur to Raipur to attend hearing of the divorce case filed by the 3 respondent/husband. Thought respondent/husband is said to be low paid employee, but transfer of aforesaid divorce petition to Family Court, Raipur would not fulfill the purpose of petitioner/wife. 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 taking 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 facts situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of his order and in light of the principles of law laid 4 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. H.M.A./60/20250 (Tushar Pandey vs. Smt. Ispa Pandey) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur be transferred to Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the record of above case to the court of Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja within a period of 15 days from today. 10. It is further directed that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 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. It is also observed that if personal appearance of the respondent/ husband is not required, then he ought not to have been compelled for his personal appearance. 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: 2025.06.13 10:48:48 +0530 5