1 2025:CGHC:24477 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 15 of 2025 1 - Smt. Vidisha Sahu W/o Shailendra Kumar Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Vilalge Bamhani Bhatha, Tahsil And Police Station - Dongargon, District- Rajnandgaon ( C.G. ). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shailendra Kumar Sahu S/o Harish Kumar Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Patelpara Bhendra, Police Station Bhakharra, Tahsil Kurud, District- Dhamtari ( C.G. ). At Present R/o Canstable, Chhattisgarh. Sashatrabal, 6th Vahinbi Camp- Badegaon, Tahsil And District- North Bastar Kanker ( C.G.). ... Respondent For applicant : Shri Dipak Diwakar, Adv. For respondent : Shri D.N. Prajapati, Adv. (Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.) ORDER ON BOARD 16-6-2025 1. Applicant has preferred this TPC under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') for transfer of Case No. HM 40A/2024 (Shailendra Kumar Sahu Vs. Smt. Vidisha Sahu) pending before the Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (CG) to Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that marriage between applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 1-2-2017 at Rajnandgaon. After marriage, the applicant lived almost about 7 Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.06.19 11:29:59 +0530 2 months in her in-laws house. Thereafter, because of physical harassment meted out to the applicant by her husband/respondent, she was compelled to live apart. Now she is residing along with her parents at village Bhumnibhatha, District Rajnandgaon. The applicant has filed MJC No. 14/2022 under section 12 of the the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Act of 2005’) against the respondent/husband, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, but the respondent/husband has filed divorce petition bearing Case No. HM 40A/2024 before the Family Court, Dhamtari to harass her. Learned counsel further submits that, distance from Rajnandgaon to Dhamtari is more than 140 km, mother of applicant is an old aged lady and her brothers are engaged in their own work, therefore, she faces difficulty in attending court proceedings at Dhamtari, as there is no one to accompany her to Dhamtari to attend the hearing in divorce case. Since the case under the Act of 2005 is pending against the respondent/husband at Rajnandgaon, therefore, it would be convenient for the husband also if the divorce case is transferred from Dhamtari to Rajnandgaon. Hence, he prayed that, the instant TPC may be allowed and the divorce case may be transferred to Rajnandgaon. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the respondent is presently posted as Constable, Chhattisgarh Sashtrabal, 6th Vahini Camp- Badegaon, Tahsil and District North Bastar, Kanker (CG), therefore, transferring the divorce petition from Dhamtari to Rajnandgaon would cause difficulty to the respondent/husband. Hence, this transfer petition may be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 material available in the transfer petition. 5. The grounds taken for transfer of divorce petition are that the applicant is residing with her parents at village Bhumnibhatha, District Rajnandgaon, the distance between Bhumnibhatha, Rajnandgaon to Dhamtari is about 280 km to & fro and it is difficult for her to travel about 280 km to & fro and down for attending Court proceedings at Dhamtari as there is none to accompany her. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199) held at paras 9 which reads 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.” 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter 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 matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi -v- 4 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 that the husband has filed the divorce petition, distance between Bhumnibhatha, Rajnandgaon and Dhamtari is about 140 km., it would be difficult for the applicant being lady to travel about 280 km. up and down for attending court proceeding, and further in view of the above 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 divorce petition, as prayed for. 9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Case No. HM 40A/2024 (Shailendra Kumar Sahu Vs. Smt. Vidisha Sahu) pending before the Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari be transferred to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. It is further observed that after receiving the case on transfer, the transferred Court is directed to consider and decide the case as early as possible, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferring Court. 10. In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak