1 2025:CGHC:32990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 96 of 2025 Khushbu Yadav W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, D/o Shri Ram Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Sarita Aata Chakki, Ward No. 03, S.E.C.L. Bishrampur Miners Quarters Colony, Bhatgaon Main Road, Near Bishrampur Nagar Panchayat Office, Bishrampur, District Surajpur C.G. ... Petitioner versus Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Rajendra Prashad Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o B-12, Ganesh Enclev Vidyasagar Nagar, Choti Koni, Koni, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shubham Dewangan, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Surya Pratap Yuddhvir Singh, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 15.7.2025 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.232/2025 (Rakesh Kumar Yadav. Khushbu Yadav) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur to Family Court, Surajpur (CG). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 25.4.2024 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After few months of the marriage, the respondent/husband started misbehaving and torturing the petitioner/wife and since BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.07.16 10:20:52 +0530 2 he is impotent also, therefore, the petitioner/wife left the company of the respondent/husband and is residing with her parents at Bishrampur, Distt. Surajpur. He further submits the petitioner has filed application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act 1956’) for nullity of marriage before Family Court, Surajpur. But, the respondent/husband has filed application under Section 9 of the Act 1956 for restitution of conjugal rights, before Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur bearing Civil Suit No.232/2025. He would next submit that, to and fro distance between Surajpur and Bilaspur is about 550 km and being a lady, it would be difficult for the petitioner to travel such long distance, hence, it is prayed that civil suit filed by the respondent/husband bearing Civil Suit No.232/2025 be transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur to Family Court, Surajpur. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent raised objection on the contention putforth by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he submits that though to and fro distance between Bilaspur and Surajpur is 550 Km, but there is direct train connectivity between these two places, which is overnight journey, hence, instant transfer petition may be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. When specific question was posed to learned counsel for the petitioner that what is the case of number of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act, 1956 before Family Court, Surajpur, then he could not appraise the Court with regard to case number. 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 3 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. In the instant case, to and fro distance between Surajpur and Bilaspur is 550 km and this fact is not controverted by learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner being a lady, it can be assumed that she would face hardship in travelling such a long distance to attend the Court proceedings at Bilaspur. 9. Considering the fact situation of the case and the distance between aforesaid two places and further 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. 10. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Civil Suit No.232/2025, pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Bilaspur, be transferred to Family Court, Surajpur (CG) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Principal Judge, Bilaspur (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Judge, Family Court, Surajpur, within a period of 15 days. 11. Further, the Judge, Family Court, Surajpur is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the 4 date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. 12. In view of above order, pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini