1 2025:CGHC:22849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 61 of 2025 1 - Smt. Disha Meshram W/o Atish Meshram Aged About 27 Years R/o Govindpur, House No. 121, Ward No. 10, Thana Kanker, Distt. Uttar Baster Kanker CG ... Petitioner versus 1 - Atish Meshram S/o Jageshwar Meshram Aged About 33 Years R/o G. 15, Feelgood Street, Adarsh Nagar, Maharaja Chowk Durg, Tahsil And Distt. Durg CG ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rohan Kumbhare, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order On Board 10/06/2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner/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.02/2025 (Atish Meshram versus Smt. Disha Meshram) pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) to the learned Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar (CG). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife would submit that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 05.04.2021, but because of cruelty meted out to the petitioner/wife by RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.06.11 17:21:43 +0530 2 respondent/husband coupled with demand of dowry, she was compelled to leave company of respondent/husband, therefore, she is residing along with her parents at Kanker, District North Bastar. He would further submit that respondent/husband has filed divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.02/2025 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg. He further submitted that one criminal case bearing No.6597/2024 for dowry harassment is already pending against the respondent/husband before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker. Learned counsel further submitted that distance between Kanker and Durg is about 130 km and being a lady, it would be difficult for her to travel such long distance, whereas if divorce petition is transferred from Durg to Kanker, then it would be convenient for respondent /husband also as he has already come to Kanker to attend hearing in aforesaid criminal case, therefore, it is prayed that application may be allowed and civil suit No.02/2025 (divorce petition) filed by respondent/husband be transferred from Family Court, Durg to the Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar (CG). 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that distance between said two places are not too much and there is direct bus connectivity between these two places and hardly two hours are taken to travel that distance. He would further submit that petitioner/wife is very well competent to travel said distance, therefore, petition is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 6. Admittedly, the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband is pending before the Family Court, Durg & to and fro distance between Kanker and Durg is about 260 km. It is not disputed that one criminal case (dowry 3 harassment case) is said to be pending against the respondent/husband before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker, therefore if civil suit (divorce petition) filed by respondent/husband is transferred from the Family Court, Durg to the Family Court, Kanker, 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 paragraphs and further considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's 4 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.02/2025 (Atish Meshram versus Smt. Disha Meshram) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) be transferred to the Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 11. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 02/2025 to the Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar (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