1 2025:CGHC:39513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 103 of 2025 1 - Smt. Nitansha Gupta W/o Vikas Prasad Gupta Aged About 26 Years D/o Shri Vinay Sahu, Tehsil Chowk, Piyush Traders, Lormi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shri Vikas Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Prasad Gupta Aged About 31 Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Birgaon, Raipur, P.S. Urla, Tehsil Dharsiva, Dist. Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 07.08.2025 Heard. 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. 220 /2025 (Vikash Prasad Gupta vs. Nitansha Gupta)) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to Family Court, Mungeli. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 11.10.2013 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur. He submits that since the 2 respondent/husband was having extramarital affair, a dispute erupted between the parties and the petitioner was compelled to live apart from her husband, therefore, she is residing with her parents at Lormi along with her seven-year-old daughter. He further submits that the petitioner/ wife has filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Mungeli bearing M.J.C.(Cr.) No. 127/2025 against the respondent/husband, in which, respondent/husband has entered his appearance. He submits that respondent/husband has filed application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Civil Suit No. 220/25 for restitution of conjugal rights before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur only to harass the petitioner/wife. It is submitted that distance between Lormi, District Mungeli to Raipur is about 270 kms. to and fro and , therefore, being a lady, it would be difficult for petitioner to travel from Lormi, District Mungeli to Raipur to attend the hearing of divorce case, therefore, it is prayed that Civil Suit No. 220/25 filed by respondent/husband may be transferred from Family Court, Raipur to Family Court, Mungeli. 3. Counsel for the respondent/husband while opposing the transfer petitioner would submit that there is frequent bus facility between Raipur to Mungeli, therefore, the petitioner may attend hearing in Raipur Court, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The ground taken for the transfer of divorce case is that maintenance case filed by the petitioner / wife in respect of both the parties is pending consideration before Family Court, Mungeli, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if divorce case bearing Civil Suit No. 220/2025 filed by 3 respondent / husband before the Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur be transferred to Family Court, Mungeli rather it would not cause any difficulty for the husband, as he has to go in the hearing of maintenance case filed by the petitioner/wife in the Family Court, Mungeli. 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 matter 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 matter 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. 4 8. Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of his 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. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No. 220 /2025 (Vikas Prasad Gupta vs. Nitansha Gupta) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur be transferred to Family Court, Mungeli for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Mungeli, within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that the Judge, Family Court, Mungeli shall 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. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.08.08 17:26:38 +0530