1 2025:CGHC:46579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 126 of 2025 Smt. Neha Sharma W/o Shri Hani Sharma Aged About 30 Years Present R/o At Ward No. 7, Near Rajasagar, Talab Pathariya Police Station Pathariya District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Hani Sharma S/o Late Haldhar Prasad Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Gayatri Nagar, Infornt Of Ganga Hospital, Belsari Naka Takhatpur Police Station Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. 6260286890 Adhar No. 548397367225 ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 11/09/2025 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. 685 of 2024 (between Hani Sharma vs. Smt. Neha Sharma) pending before Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) to Family Court, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.). 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 27.06.2017 as per Hindu custom and rituals and they have been blessed with two children, aged about 5 years & 2 years, respectively. After sometime of the marriage, because of harassment meted out to the petitioner/ wife by respondent / husband in connection with demand of dowry, she has been compelled to live apart, therefore, she is residing with her two minor children along with her parents at Mungeli. He further submits that the petitioner /wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the respondent/husband before Family Court, Mungeli. He submits that respondent/husband has filed divorce case bearing Civil Suit No. 685/2024 before the Family Court, Bilaspur only to harass to the petitioner/wife. It is submitted distance between Mungeli to Bilaspur is about 100 kms. to and fro, therefore, being a mother of two minor children, it would be difficult for her to travel from Mungeli to Bilaspur to attend the hearing of divorce case, therefore, it is prayed that Civil Suit No. 685/2024 filed by respondent/husband may be transferred from Family Court, Bilaspur to Family Court, Mungeli. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband submits that though distance between Bilaspur to Mungeli is about 100 kms. to and fro, but there is direct bust connectivity between these two places, hence, it would not be difficult for petitioner/wife to travel such long distance, hence, the instant 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 one maintenance case filed by the petitioner / wife in respect of both the parties 3 are pending before the Family Court, Mungeli, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if divorce case bearing Civil Suit No. 685/2024 filed by respondent / husband before the Family Court, Bilaspur, 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 aforesaid two cases filed by the petitioner/wife in the Court at 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. 685/2024 pending before learned Family Court, Bilaspur be transferred to the Family Court, Mungeli for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur 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 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. 11. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.09.16 12:02:33 +0530