Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7454 (CHH)

SMT. MALA PRADHAN v. BALARAM PRADHAN

TPC/28/2025 · 2025-04-15

Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:17314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 28 of 2025 1 - Smt. Mala Pradhan W/o Balaram Pradhan Aged About 49 Years C/o Tirath Ram Pradhan Ward No. 59, Sanjay Nagar Chatideeh Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Balaram Pradhan S/o Shri Shatrudhan Pradhan Aged About 51 Years C/o Shatrughan Prasad Pradhan Quarter No. 9- B Sadak No. 22 Sector - 5 Civil Center Bhilai Tahsil And Dsitrict - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Bishnu Muni, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 15/04/2025 Heard. 1. Petitioner / wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No. 382-A/2022 (Balaram Pradhan Vs. Smt. Mala Pradhan) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg to Family Court, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / wife submits that marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/ wife on 01.05.1996 and out of their wedlock, two children were born. He further submits that despite residing together, respondent / husband filed divorce petition against the 2 petitioner/wife in the year 2005 and obtained ex-parte judgment & decree against petitioner / wife, thereafter, he ousted her from his home. He further submits that thereafter, the petitioner is residing alongwith her parents at Janjgir- Champa alongwith her two minor children. He next submits that petitioner/wife preferred appeal against the ex parte decree obtained by respondent/ husband bearing FAM No. 45 of 2015, which was allowed by learned Division Bench of this High Court by setting -aside the ex-parte judgment & decree dated 22.03.2006 and remitted back the matter to Family Court, Durg to adjudicate the matter on merits. Thereafter, that said Civil Suit No. 382-A/ 2022 has been restored to its original number by the learned Family Court, Durg. He further submits that distance between Durg to Bilaspur is about 150 kms., being a lady, it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel such long distance. It is next submitted that the petitioner/wife is non-working woman and dependent upon her parents, her sister is also residing at Bilaspur, therefore, divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. 382-A/2022 filed by respondent / husband be transferred from Family Court, Durg to Family Court, Bilaspur. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent/husband would submit that the petitioner/wife is not permanent resident of Bilaspur and there is direct connectivity between Bilaspur to Durg by train or bus. Further, maintenance amount has been granted in favour of the petitioner, therefore, no sufficient ground has been shown for transfer of the aforesaid case. It is further submit that from the wedlock of petitioner /wife & respondent /husband, they have been blessed with two children i.e. one male child and one female child, who are residing with their father i.e. respondent/husband, therefore, it is prayed that this transfer petition may be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 5. Reasons shown by the petitioner/wife to transfer civil suit from Family Court, Durg to Family Court, Bilaspur is distance between Bilaspur to Durg and her poor financial strata, but distance between Bilaspur to Durg is only 150 kms. and there is direct bus and train connectivity between these places; further as per version of petitioner/wife herself that she is permanent resident of Janjgir- Champa, instead thereof she is seeking transfer of aforesaid civil suit from Durg to Bilaspur. It is also apt to be noted here that both the parties have blessed with two children, but they are said to be residing along with respondent/husband. As such, I do not find any good ground to allow the instant transfer petition filed by the petitioner/wife. 6. Accordingly, the transfer petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.24 11:09:08 +0530