1 2026:CGHC:20891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 198 of 2025 Vikas Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Videshi Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Gokul Nagar, Ward No. 4, Gram Ghuru, Thana Sakri, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. . Petitioner(s) versus Presmshila Yadav Tandi D/o Shri Tarun Tandi Aged About 22 Years R/o Gram Puraina Stars Para, Camp 01, Bhilai 03, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None though served (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 05/05/2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner/husband seeking transfer of proceedings bearing Case No. MJC Cri. 769/2025, instituted under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.05.05 16:52:54 +0530 2 (C.G.), to the Court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Due to matrimonial discord, disputes have arisen between the parties and multiple proceedings are pending before different courts. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a matrimonial case bearing HMA No. 288/2025 under Sections 12(b) and (c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Bilaspur. It is further submitted that the respondent/wife has instituted proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS before the Family Court, Durg seeking maintenance. It is contended that both proceedings arise out of the same matrimonial dispute and, therefore, the case pending at Durg deserves to be transferred to Bilaspur. It is further submitted that the respondent has also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance and litigation expenses before the Family Court, Bilaspur, and thus is already contesting proceedings at Bilaspur. On this basis, it is argued that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the proceedings pending at Durg are transferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a labourer with limited income and faces financial hardship in attending proceedings at Durg. 4. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of the respondent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 3 6. The principal ground raised by the petitioner is that proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS are pending at Durg, whereas proceedings under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are pending at Bilaspur, and therefore, the matter pending at Durg deserves to be transferred. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said ground is not sufficient to justify transfer of the proceedings. The application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act pending at Bilaspur is only for grant of interim maintenance and litigation expenses, whereas the proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS pending before the Family Court at Durg constitute an independent remedy available to the respondent and the wife, who is residing with her parents, is entitled to institute proceedings for maintenance at a place convenient to her. 8. Merely because certain proceedings are pending at Bilaspur would not disentitle the respondent from availing her remedy before the competent court at Durg. The ground raised by the petitioner is, therefore, not justified for transfer of the proceedings. 9. The other grounds raised by the petitioner regarding inconvenience and financial hardship are general in nature and not supported by any cogent material. 10. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that generally it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- 4 "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. 10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.” 11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for transfer is made out. 12. Accordingly, the present transfer petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Rahul/jyoti