1 / 3 2025:CGHC:3676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR T P C No. 220 of 20 24 • Smt. Rajani Dadsena W/o Pravin Dadsena, Aged About 33 Years Presently Resident C/o Madhelal Jaiswal , Village Judga, Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, Distict Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus • Pravin Dadsena S/o Jiwan Lal Dadsena Aged About 35 Years Occupation Training Officer, Government I.T.I. Mana Raipur, R/o D/77, Phase -2, Wood Eyeland, Amleshwar, District Durg (C.G.) Presently Address-E.W.S.175, Behind of Bharatmata School, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 21/01/2025 1. Petitioner (wife) has filed this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking prayer for transfer of Case No. 722/2024 (Praveen Dadsena vs. Smt. Rajni Dadsena), pending before learned Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg to the Family Court at Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the marriage of petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 13.03.2021. After some time of marriage, some dispute took place between them and both of them started residing separately. Petitioner is residing in the house of her parents at village Judga, P.S. Sakti. Initially, petitioner has filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance from the respondent, in the month of April 2024 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 which is pending consideration before the Family Court at Sakti. He next contended that proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is also pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra District Janjgir-Champa which is near to district Sakti. As two petitions are pending at district Sakti, therefore the application filed by respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be transferred to Family court at Sakti. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner at present is residing at Malhar, Bilaspur as she is working as Staff Nurse in Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Malhar. He further contended that he is having no objection if the case is transferred from Family Court, Durg to any other place, however, the submission is that the case may be transferred to Family Court, Bilaspur which will be convenient for both the sides. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that 03 cases are already pending between the parties, two at Family Court, Dabhra, Janjgir-Champa and one at Family Court, Sakti. Dabhra is nearer to Sakti which is also not in dispute. 6. Petitioner is a lady and convenience of the wife to attend the case is also one of the considerations at the time of deciding transfer petition. 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 3 / 3 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 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 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. 8. Petitioner is appearing for attending proceedings before the court at Sakti District Sakti and the court at Dabhra District Janjgir-Champa. In the said facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for respondent with regard to transferring of the case at Family Court, Bilaspur is rejected. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 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. 10. Accordingly, this transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Case No. 722/2024 (Praveen Dadsena vs. Smt. Rajni Dadsena), pending before learned Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg be transferred to Family Court, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.). 11. The Family Court, Durg, District Durg is directed to transfer the record of the above case to the Family Court, Sakti forthwith. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Sakti on 18.02.2025. 12. The learned Family Court, Sakti will make all endevours to conclude the proceedings of the case at the earliest subject to co-operation by the parties. 13. Registry of this Court is directed to send the copy of order to the Family Court, Durg, District Durg. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE