1 2025:CGHC:43342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 125 of 2025 1 - Satyawati Bhardwaj W/o Ajay Raj Bhardwaj Aged About 34 Years Uid- 6724- 1420-7348, R/o Qr. No. E-17/200, C S P G C L Colony, Lachchhanpur, Basantpur, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G.Pin - 495671, Presently Residing At C-45, Vijayapuram Phase-1, Near Science College, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur C.G. --- Applicant versus 1 - Ajay Raj Bhardwaj S/o Shri Sant Ram Bhardwaj Aged About 35 Years R/o Qr. No. E-17/200, C S P G C L Colony, Lachchhanpur, Basantpur, Tahsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G.Pin - 495671. Respondent For applicant : Mr. Mirza Kesar Baeg, Adv. For respondent : Mr. Lavkush Kumar Sahu, Adv. (Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.) ORDER ON BOARD 26-8-2025 1. Applicant/wife has preferred this TPC under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') for transfer of Case No. 71A/2025 (Ajay Raj Bhardwaj Vs. Satyavati Bhardwaj) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir – Champa (CG) to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (CG). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that, marriage of Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.01 17:13:02 +0530 2 applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 6-2-2018 and they have been blessed with two sons namely Aayansh and Aadwik presently aged about 6 years and 4 years respectively. Because of cruelty meted out by the respondent to the applicant, on 21-4-2024, she was compelled to live apart from her matrimonial house and now she is residing at her parental house with her two minor children at Bilaspur. The respondent filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir- Champa bearing Case No. 91A/2025, but distance from Bilaspur to Janjgir is about 70 km. Further the applicant is mother of two minor children, who are residing with her, therefore, it would be difficult for her to travel from Bilaspur to Janjgir to attend court proceedings, hence, the case in question be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ husband submits that distance between Bilaspur to Janjgir is only 70 km. and there is direct bus connectivity between these two places, therefore, there would be no difficulty for the applicant to attend the Court proceedings at Janjgir. Therefore, instant transfer petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the transfer petition and the relevant provisions. 3 5. Ground raised for transfer of the case are that, distance between Bilaspur to Janjgir is about 70 Km., two minor children are residing with the applicant at her parental house, therefore, it would be difficult for the applicant to travel 140 km. (up and down) from Bilaspur to Janjgir along with two minor children. 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 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. 4 8. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and 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 case in question, as prayed for. 9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Case No. 91A/2025 (Ajay Raj Bhardwaj Vs. Smt. Satyavati Bhardwaj) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) be transferred to Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 10. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid case to the 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