1 2025:CGHC:10056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 8 of 2025 Chandani Sancheti W/o Anshul Jain D/o Neelam Sancheti Aged About 32 Years R/o 107 Linepara, Nagri, Ward No. 10, Nagri, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Anshul Jain S/o Vimal Jain Aged About 32 Years R/o Palace Road Sadar Ward, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Vaishali Jeswani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. PK Tulsyan, Advocate (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 28/02/2025 1. Petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Case No.93A/2024 (Anshul Jain vs. Chandani Sancheti) pending before Family Court, Bastar at Jagdalpur to the Family Court, Dhamtari (CG). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 27.6.2023. After marriage, they resided together for about 7-8 months and they were blessed with a female child, presently aged about 7 months. Due to ill treatment and harassment meted out to the petitioner/wife by the respondent/husband, she was compelled to live apart from her husband and she is currently residing at her parental house at BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.03.01 10:23:19 +0530 2 Dhamtari along with her 07 months old baby. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent/husband has filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court, Jagdalpur bearing No.93A/2024. To and fro distance between Jagdalpur and Dhamtari is about 440 Km and being a mother of 07 months old baby, it would be difficult for the petitioner to travel such long distance to attend the Court proceedings at Jagdalpur. She would further submit that daughter of the petitioner has also undergone surgery of congenital right side on 19.10.2024, hence she prayed that aforesaid civil suit bearing No.93A/2024 be transferred from Family Court, Jagdalpur to Family Court, Dhamtari 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that father of the respondent is suffering from various ailments and is bed ridden, therefore, he needs special care. Being only son, it is necessary for the respondent to take care of his ailing father, hence, it is prayed that this transfer petition may be dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent alternatively prayed that case bearing No.93A/2024 be transferred to Family Court, Kanker, which is a mid place for both the parties. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 5. 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 3 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.” 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 case 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. 7. In the instant case, both the parties contended their medical difficulties. The petitioner is mother of minor child, aged about 07 months, who suffers from postural deformity by birth and undergone surgery few months ago. Distance between Jagdalpur and Dhamtari is about 220 Km and the petitioner, being mother of minor child, aged about 07 months, it would be difficult for her to travel about 440 Km up- down to attend the Court proceedings at Jagdalpur, than her husband, if the case is not transferred from Family Court Jagdalpur to Family Court Dhamtari. 8. Considering the fact situation of the case and the distance between aforesaid two places and further 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 civil suit, as prayed for. 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Case No.93A/2024, pending before Family Court. Jagdalpur (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court, Dhamtari (CG) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Dhamtari within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that the Family Court Dhamtari is directed to 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. The parties are also 4 directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. 11. In view of above order, pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini