1 2025:CGHC:10041 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 171 of 2024 Ritumala Nohale W/o Ashish Kumar Nohale Aged About 34 Years D/o Shri Dilip Shivare, R/o Jarhagaon, Gram Chattaona, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Ashish Kumar Nohale S/o Amrut Kumar Nohale Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Chidi Dafai Jhagrakhand, Tahsil- Manendragarh, District : Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Richa Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. AK Yadav, 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.04/2024 (Ashish Kumar Nohale vs. Ritumala) pending before Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh to the Family Court, Mungeli (C.G.) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 12.11.2010. After marriage, they resided together for about 10 years and BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.03.03 14:17:05 +0530 2 they were blessed with twins, one male and one female, presently aged about 08 years. He further submits that subsequently, the husband developed illicit relation with another girl and thereafter started harassing the petitioner mentally and physically, which compelled the petitioner to live apart. Therefore, she is residing at Jarhagaon, village Chattona Distt. Mungeli along with her minor children. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed two cases against the respondent bearing Misc. Criminal Case No.220/2024 under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for maintenance and under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, bearing Misc. Criminal Case No.65/2024, which are pending consideration in the Court of Mungeli, but the respondent has filed application under Section 32 of the Divorces Act, 1869 before Judge Family Court, Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (MCB). He would further submit that distance between Manendragarh and Mungeli is about 200 km, therefore, it would be difficult for the petitioner, who is mother of two minor children, to go to Manendragarh to attend the court proceedings. Since two cases are pending in the Court of Mungeli against the respondent, therefore, transferring case filed by the respondent under Section 32 of the Divorce Act from Family Court Manendragarh to Family Court Mungeli would be convenient for the respondent also, as such, it is prayed that case filed by the respondent bearing No.04/2024 may be transferred from Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh to Family Court Mungeli. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the husband has no objection if the aforesaid case is transferred from Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh to Family Court Mungeli. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 5. Distance between Manendragarh and Mungeli is about 200 Km and the petitioner, being a mother of two minor children, aged about 08 years, it would be difficult for her to travel about 400 Km up-down to attend the Court proceedings at Manendragarh. Since two cases are pending against the respondent/husband in the Court of Mungeli, therefore, it would be convenient for the husband also if the case filed by the respondent under Section 32 of the Divorce Act, for restitution of conjugal rights is transferred from Family Court Manendragarh to Family Court Mungeli. Moreover, the respondent/husband has not raised any objection in respect of transfer of aforesaid case. 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.” 4 7. 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. 8. Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of this 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 aforesaid case, as prayed for. 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the case bearing No.04/2024 (Ashish Kumar Nohale vs. Ritumala) pending before Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh be transferred to the Family Court, Mungeli (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh 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 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. 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