1 2025:CGHC:20198 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 58 of 2025 Smt. Kusum Jaiswal W/o Deep Kumar Jaiswal Aged About 34 Years R/o (Current Address) Gram Sondka, Tehsil Kharsia, P.S. Kharsia, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Deep Kumar Jaiswal S/o Jagannath Jaiswal Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 09 Bharat Mata Chowk, Tehsil And District Sarangarh Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 02/05/2025 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner /wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No. A/8/2025 [Deep Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Kusum Jaiswal) pending before Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh – Bilaigarh (C.G.) to the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 12.06.2015 as AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.05.07 14:58:19 +0530 2 per Hindu rites and rituals at Raigarh. After marriage, they resided together for about 2 years and they have been blessed with two children, aged about 7 years & 5 years, respectively. Thereafter, respondent/husband and his family members used to harass the petitioner/wife physically & mentally in connection with demand of dowry and they compelled her to leave her matrimonial house, therefore, petitioner/wife is residing alongwith her old aged parents at Village Sondka, Tehsil – Kharsia, District Raipur (C.G.) alongwith her two minor children. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. A/8/2025 under Section 13 (1) (1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Upper District Judge, Sarngarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. It is contended that distance between Sarangarh to Raigarh is about 55 kms. and being a lady, it would be very difficult for her to travel such long distance i.e. 110 kms to and fro alognwith her two minor children to attend the court proceeding at Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, hence, it is prayed that divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. A/8/2025 filed by the respondent/husband may be transferred from the Court of Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband submits that distance between Sarangarh-Bilaigarh to Raigarh is only 55 kms. and there is direct bus connectivity between these two places, therefore, it would not be difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel from Raigarh to Sarangarh to attend the hearing of aforesaid divorce case bearing Civil Suit No. A/8/2025 filed by respondent/husband, therefore, transfer petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner/wife is residing at village Sondka, Tahsil -Kharsia, District Raigarh, but the respondent/husband has filed 3 divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. A/8/2025 (Deep Kumar Jaiswal vs. Smt. Kusum Jaiswal) in the Court of Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh; and the distance between Sarangarh-Bilagarh (C.G.) to Raigarh is 110 kms. to and fro, therefore, being a lady, it would be very difficult for her to travel such long distance i.e. 110 kms to and fro to attend the court proceeding at Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). 7. 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.” 8. 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- Kishore Babulal Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. 4 9. Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of his 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 civil suit, as prayed for. 10. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No. A/8/2025 [Deep Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Smt. Kusum Jaiswal] pending before Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh – Bilaigarh (C.G.) be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh – Bilaigarh (C.G.) is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Raigarh, within a period of 15 days. 11. It is further directed that that Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh shall 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. 12. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/-