1 2025:CGHC:9116 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 21 of 2025 • Khushbu Markandey, W/o Deepak Kumar Markandey, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Hathpan, Tehsil Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.), Present R/o LIG- F-180, Ward No.-50, New Borsi, Near Ekta Provision Store, District Durg (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus • Deepak Kumar Markandey, S/o Late Bhagwat Markandey, Aged About 35 Years, Permanent R/o Village Bathena, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 21/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner/wife has filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for transfer of divorce petition bearing Case No.1021/2024 (Deepak Kumar Markandey Versus Khushbu Markandey) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) to the Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 06.05.2014 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage, they lived together for about 7 years 2 and they have been blessed with a male child, aged about 10 years at present. Subsequently, respondent/husband started harassing petitioner/wife on various counts, as such, she has been compelled to live apart at her parental place with her father at New Borsi, District Durg (C.G.) along with her child. He further submitted that in maintenance case, amount of Rs.11,000/- (in total), as maintenance has been sanctioned by the Family Court, Durg (C.G.) in favour of the petitioner, but respondent is not paying the said amount, therefore, execution proceeding is going on before the Family Court, Durg (C.G.), against the respondent. Respondent/husband has filed the divorce petition bearing Case No.1021/2024 before the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), pending consideration. Though distance between Durg and Raipur is only 35 kms, but being a mother of 10 years old child, it would be difficult for her to travel from Durg to Raipur. It is further submitted that at present respondent/husband is posted at Rajnandgaon, and if, case is transferred to the Family Court Durg (C.G.), then it would be convenient for him also to attend hearing at Durg. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the divorce case may be transferred from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) to the Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg (C.G.). 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the distance between Durg and Raipur is 35 kms and there is direct connectivity by bus and train. Though, execution case is pending at Durg, but it is not compulsory for respondent/husband to appear in person in that case, therefore, pendency of execution case could not be a ground to transfer the aforesaid case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 6. Though, aforesaid divorce petition is pending at Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) and petitioner is residing at Durg (C.G.), distance between these two places 3 is about 35 kms, but petitioner is a mother of 10 years old child and further, it is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that presently respondent/husband is posted at Rajnandgaon, therefore, if divorce petition is filed by the respondent/husband is transferred from Family Court Raipur to Family Court Durg, then it would be convenient for respondent also. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 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.” 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another reported in (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 Versus Kishore Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, also considering 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 4 Court, 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 Case No.1021/2024 (Deepak Kumar Markandey Versus Khushbu Markandey) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg (C.G.) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 11. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid divorce petition bearing Case No.1021/2024 to the Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg (C.G.), 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. 12. In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Date: 2025.02.22 12:34:16 +0530