1 2025:CGHC:32112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 86 of 2025 1 - Smt. Ravneet Kaur W/o Ravneet Singh Saluja Aged About 28 Years R/o C/o Sardar Surender Pal Singh, Career Point Road, Dayalbandh, Bilaspur, P.S. - City Kotwali, Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Applicant versus 1 - Ravneet Singh Saluja S/o Lt. Kamaljeet Singh Saluja Aged About 28 Years R/o Basantkunj, Gurunanak Nagar, Near Gurudwara, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For applicant : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, For Respondent : Mr. Mayank Gupta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 10/07/2025 1 Applicant/wife has preferred this TPC under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') for transfer of HMA No. 301/2025 (Ravneet Singh Saluja Vs. Ravneet Kaur) pending before the 2nd Additional Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.07.15 12:58:40 +0530 2 Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur. 2 Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that marriage of applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 4-2-2023. Their relation became sore when the fact was revealed to the applicant/wife that, respondent/husband was HIV positive patient and the marriage was solemnized by the respondent concealing said fact. Knowing this fact, she left the company of the applicant and went to her parental home at Bilaspur. She gave birth to a male child in the hospital on 14-5-2024. On same day, respondent took the child and fled away from the hospital. Thereafter, the child is residing along with respondent. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant filed a case under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for maintenance, which is pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur as MJC No. 1016/2024. She also filed an application for custody of child before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur. She also filed a complaint case under Section 175(3) of the BNSS before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. Hence, 3 cases filed by her are pending against the respondent at Bilaspur, but the respondent has filed divorce petition before Family Court, Raipur. Distance from Bilaspur to Raipur is about 110 km., therefore, being lady, it would be difficult for applicant to travel to Bilaspur to Raipur. She further submits that, looking to above facts, if case is transferred from Raipur to Bilaspur, then it may be convenient for respondent also, as 3 cases are already pending at Bilaspur between the parties. Hence, the transfer petition may be allowed. 3 3 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that, the applicant was very well knowing about the fact that the respondent is HIV Positive patient. Even she accompanied many times to Hyderabad for his treatment. Since the applicant has treatened respondent that, if he will not take the child with him, then she will give the child to orphanage, therefore the respondent took the child, that too, with consent of the applicant. Distance between Raipur to Bilaspur is only 110 km and they are well connected through bus and train, therefore, it would not be difficult for applicant to travel to Raipur for attending the Court proceeding. Hence, instant TPC may be rejected. 4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the transfer petition and the relevant provisions. 5 Grounds taken by the applicant for transfer of the divorce petition are that, distance between Bilaspur to Raipur is about 110 Km., the applicant being lady, it would be difficult for her to travel about 220 to and from to attend the Court proceeding at Raipur, and further, 3 cases filed by the applicant are already pending against the respondent at Bilaspur. 6 Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at paras 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 4 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 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. 8 Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, particularly considering that 3 cases filed by the applicant are already pending at Bilaspur, the divorce petition has been filed by the respondent/husband and also considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's 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. 9 Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that HMA No. 301/2025 (Ravneet Singh Saluja Vs. Ravneet Kaur) pending before the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 5 10 The 2nd Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid case to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. It is further observed that after receiving the case on transfer, the transferee 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. 11 In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak