1 2025:CGHC:46982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 25 of 2025 Uma Baghel W/o Rajat Maglan Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Birejhar, Post- Temri, Tahsil- Ghumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Rajat Maglan S/o Shri Satish Kumar Maglan Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 526, Road No. 4, Ward No. 19, Gurudwara Gurunanak Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 12 .09.2024 1. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed under Section 447 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking transfer of Cr. M.J.C. No. 1317/2024 pending before the Family Court, Durg to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon. 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent are legally wedded husband and wife, their marriage having been ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.09.16 13:34:59 +0530 2 solemnized on 23.02.2023 before the Additional Collector and Marriage Officer. After this ceremony, however, the respondent refused to take the petitioner to the matrimonial home, contending that the marriage had not been performed with the traditional saptapadi (seven steps around the sacred fire). Consequently, on 26.04.2024, the parties again solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals at the Arya Samaj Mandir in the presence of their respective family members, after which the respondent took the petitioner to his residence to fulfil matrimonial obligations. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to cruelty by the respondent’s family members, and on 31.05.2024 the respondent left her at her parental home, assuring that he would bring her back once matters improved, but he failed to do so. Believing his assurances, the petitioner waited, but as the respondent did not resume cohabitation, she filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking maintenance. After service of notice, the respondent filed a reply. The petitioner presently resides in District Rajnandgaon, while the said maintenance proceedings are pending before the learned Family Court at Durg, requiring her to travel from Rajnandgaon to Durg on each date of hearing, as reflected in the relevant portion of the order-sheet. The petitioner has no independent source of income and incurs substantial expenses to attend the proceedings, making it difficult for her to return the same day, she therefore, seeks transfer of the case 3 from the Family Court, Durg, to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon. Hence, the transfer petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, a resident of District Rajnandgaon with no independent source of income, is facing severe hardship in attending the divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court, Durg. She is required to travel approximately 80 km each way, incurring considerable expense and time, and finds it painful and difficult to appear and defend herself alone. In these circumstances, and relying on the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237 and 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, the petitioner most humbly prays for transfer of the divorce case from the Family Court, Durg, to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. From perusal of the record, it transpires that mere inconvenience or the need to travel a distance of approximately 80 km, without any cogent material to establish that the petitioner is unable to safely or effectively attend the proceedings at Durg, does not constitute a sufficient ground for transfer. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner were rendered in the context of demonstrated exceptional hardship or circumstances which are not shown to exist in the present case. 4 7. It is settled law that the power of transfer is to be exercised sparingly and only when it is expedient in the interest of justice. The petitioner has not produced any medical evidence, security concern, or other special circumstance to show that she is incapable of attending the proceedings before the Family Court, Durg. The distance involved is not so great as to make attendance impracticable, and suitable arrangements for day-to- day travel can be made. 8. In view of the foregoing, I find no justifiable ground to transfer Cr.M.J.C. No. 1317/2024 from the Family Court, Durg, to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon. 9. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek