Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18891 (CHH)

LILEE VISHWAS v. PUSHPENDRA VISHWAS

TPC/66/2025 · 2025-06-25

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:28076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 66 of 2025 Lilee Vishwas W/o Pushpendra Vishwas Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mohra, P.S.- Suhela, Tahsil- Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. Presently Residing At- C/o Shri Tapas Sarkar, Village Pamgarh, P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Pushpendra Vishwas S/o Manoj Vishwas Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Mohra, P.S.- Suhela, Tahsil- Simga, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 26.6.2025 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.A/156/2024 (Pushpendra Vishwas vs. Lilee Vishwas) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara to Judge, Family Court, Janjgir Distt. Janjgir-Champa (CG). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 13.7.2021, but due to harassment meted out to the petitioner/wife by the respondent/husband on various counts, she was compelled to live apart from her husband, as such, she is residing with her parents at Pamgarh. Learned counsel would further submit that BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.06.27 10:54:03 +0530 2 the respondent/husband has filed Civil Suit A/156/2024 under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazar, but the petitioner has filed maintenance application under Section 144 of BNSS Act bearing MJC No.19/25 before Family Court, Janjgir. He further submits that since one case is already pending before Family Court, Janjgir, therefore, aforesaid civil suit filed by the respondent may be transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court Baloda Bazar, Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara to Family Court, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir- Champa, as there is no direct bus connectivity from Pamgarh to Baloda Bazar and being lady, it would be difficult for the petitioner to travel from Janjgir to Baloda Bazar. He would further submit that it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the matter of transfer of cases, convenience of the wife ought to have been seen. In this regard, he placed reliance in the matter of NCV Aishwarya vs. AS Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199). 3. Respondent has filed reply. Learned counsel for the respondent referring to its reply would submit that the petitioner is residing at village Pamgarh, Distt. Janjgir-chapa along with her parents. Distance between Baloda Bazar and Janjgir- Champa is about 48 Km and distance between Pamgarh and Janjgir Champa is about 20 Km. He further submits that parents of the petitioner are financially sound persons and they are having four wheeler also, therefore, it would not be difficult for the petitioner to travel such short distance from her residence, i.e. Pamgarh, which situates almost between Baloda Bazar and Janjgir-Champa. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that in the matter of transfer of petition, convenience of the wife ought to have been seen. But in the instant case, as contended by both the parties, the petitioner is residing at Pamgarh and distance between Baloda Bazar (where the respondent has filed civil suit for nullity of marriage) and Janjgir is 48 Km, whereas distance between Pamgarh and Janjgir 3 (where the petitioner has filed maintenance application) is about 20 Km. Thus, distance between both the places where said two cases are pending are not too far, hence, it cannot be said that for travelling such short distance, the petitioner will face any problem. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini