1 2025:CGHC:8609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 4 of 2025 Smt. Purnima Sahu W/o Sevaram Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Through Rooplal Sahu, Mohari Bhata, PS Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Sevaram Sahu S/o Bhagatram Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Vidhansabha Road, Amasivni, PS Vidhansabha Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present, though served (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 19/02/2025 1. Petitioner wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of HMA No. 605/2024 (Sevaram Sahu vs. Purnima Sahu) pending before First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to the Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 16.5.2010. After marriage, they resided together for about 10 years and they were blessed with two female children, presently aged about 13 and 9 years. Due BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.02.20 15:04:56 +0530 2 to ill treatment and harassment meted out to the petitioner/wife by the respondent/husband, she was compelled to live apart from her husband and she is currently residing at her parental house at Mahasamund along with her two minor daughters. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent/husband has filed divorce petition bearing HMA No.605/2024 before the Family Court, Raipur, but being mother of two minor daughters, it would be difficult for the petitioner to go to Raipur from Mahasamund, which is about 55-60 km from Mahasamund. He further submits that maintenance order has been passed against the respondent/husband by Family Court, Mahasamund, despite that the respondent/husband is not making any payment, therefore, recovery proceedings bearing MJC No.183/2023 has been initiated by the applicant/wife before Family Court, Mahasamund, therefore, transferring divorce petition from Family Court Raipur to Family Court Mahasamund would be convenient for the respondent also, as such, it is prayed that divorce petition bearing HMA No.605/24 may be transferred from First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to Family Court Mahasamund. 3. Despite service of notice, neither the respondent appeared nor any representation was made on his behalf. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 5. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is mother of two minor daughters, aged about 13 and 9 years and one case is already pending before Family Court, Mahasamund, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties if divorce petition bearing HMA No.605/2024 is transferred from Family Court Raipur to Family Court, Mahasamund. 3 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 case 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 case 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 this 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. 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the divorce case bearing HMA No.605/2024 (Sevaram Sahu vs. Purnima Sahu) pending before First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court, Mahasamund for its trial/ disposal in 4 accordance with law. The First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Durg within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that the Family Court Mahasamund is directed to 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. In view of above order, pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini