1 2025:CGHC:5518 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 210 of 2024 Smt. Kajal Sharma W/o Prashant Sharma Aged About 29 Years Permanent R/o C/o Shri Purushottam Pandey, Kumhar Para, Gobra Navapara, Rajim District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus Prashant Sharma S/o Mahendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o Shitlapara Kanker, Dist. North Bastar Kanker Presently R/o Jhuniya Para Kanker Dist. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh --- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 30/01/2025 1. Petitioner (wife) has filed this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the Civil Case No.42-A/2024 (Prashant Sharma Vs. Smt. Kajal Sharma), pending before the Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District – North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was married to respondent on 20.02.2020 at Village – Gobra Navapara, Rajim, District Raipur as per Hindu rites and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one female child presently two years of age. Few days of marriage, things went on smoothly, however after sometime, dispute arose between the parties due to which petitioner left her matrimonial home, she is BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.01 16:01:31 +0530 2 presently residing with her parents at Gobra Navapara, Rajim. Respondent (husband) filed an application under Section 13 (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker for dissolution of marriage, which was registered as Civil Suit No.42-A of 2024, in which notice was issued to petitioner (wife). Petitioner (wife) has also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against respondent before Judge, Family Court, Raipur, which is pending consideration. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is presently residing in her maternal home at Gobra Nawapara, Rajim. Respondent (husband) has deliberately filed an application under Section 13 (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Kanker in order to harass and torture the petitioner. The distance of Kanker is about 120 KM from her present place of residence and it will be very difficult for her to travel such long distance for attending the court proceedings with or without her child. There is no direct public conveyance from her place of residence. Parents of the petitioner are elderly one, and there are no other family members available to accompany her to attend the court proceedings at Kanker. It is contended that petitioner has also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Raipur, in which respondent has also caused his appearance, therefore, Civil Case No.42-A/2024, pending before the Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) may be directed to be transferred to the Family Court at Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that if this Court decides to transfer the civil suit to Family Court, Raipur, then a direction be issued to ensure that both cases may be tried on the same day. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that respondent married to petitioner in the year 2020 as per Hindu rituals and customs and due to some dispute between the parties, petitioner is living in her parent’s house at Gobra Navapara, Rajim. Petitioner has also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, before the Family Court, Raipur, in which respondent has caused his appearance. 7. The grounds taken by petitioner for transfer of the Civil Suit No.42-A/2024 is that application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner against respondent is pending before the Family Court, Raipur within whose territorial jurisdiction, petitioner wife is residing. The distance of Kanker is 120 Km. from her present place of residence. Petitioner being the lady and is having a child of two years, there is no direct public conveyance and there is no other male member to accompany her, therefore it would be very difficult for her in travelling from her present place of residence to Kanker to attend the court proceeding. 8. Convenience of the wife to attend the case is also one of the consideration at the time of deciding transfer petition. On the other hand as per documents placed on record, the respondent is already 4 appearing before the Court at Raipur in the proceedings filed by petitioner against him. Therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if the case filed by respondent/husband seeking decree of divorce is transferred from the Family Court North Bastar Kanker, to Family Court, Raipur it would not cause any difficulty to respondent/husband, as he is already appearing before the Family Court at Raipur in the proceedings filed by petitioner/wife. He can submit appropriate application for hearing of both the cases on same date. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, 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.” 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Vs. 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 5 looked into. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs 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. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; in the opinion of this Court it is a fit case for transfer of the case as prayed for by petitioner/wife. 12. Accordingly, this transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Civil Suit No.42-A/2024 (Prashant Sharma Vs. Smt. Kajal Sharma), pending before the Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker shall be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur. 13. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker is directed to transfer the record of the above case to the Family Court, Raipur forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Raipur on 17.02.2025. 14. The learned Family Court Raipur will make all endevours to conclude the proceedings of the case at the earliest subject to cooperation by the parties. 15. Registry of this Court is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Family Court Kanker, District Uttar Bastart Kanker for necessary action and compliance. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram