1 2026:CGHC:6749 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 122 of 2025 Smt. Hemlata Patel W/o Vijay Kumar Patel Aged About 37 Years (Presently About- 39 Years), Caste- Aghriya, R/o- Vill Lahraud, Tah And P.S.- Pithaura, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Late Yaadram Patel Aged About 48 Years (Presently 50 Years), Caste- Aghariya, R/o- M.I.G.- 1, B-33, Sharda Bihar, Korba, Tah. And Dist- Korba (C.G.) (Presently Residing And Working At I.B.M. America (United States) ... Respondent (Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 06/02/2026 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking the transfer of Case No.76A/2022, filed under Section 13(1), (1), (1-a) (1-b ) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the learned Family Court Korba, District Korba to the learned Family Court Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 27.03.2006 and out of their wedlock, two children were born. Learned counsel submits that after AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.02.06 17:06:40 +0530 2 the birth of the second child, the behaviour of the respondent/husband towards the petitioner/wife changed, and he started ill-treating the petitioner with regard to her character. Thereafter, the respondent/husband took his son to America, leaving behind the petitioner and her daughter, as a result of which the petitioner started residing with her parents at Mahasamund. However, during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner is residing at Raipur for the purpose of the education of her minor daughter. Learned counsel further submits that it will be inconvenient for her to attend the proceedings with her minor daughter, before the learned Family Court, Korba, which is too far, on the scheduled dates of hearing. Such travel imposes severe hardship upon the petitioner, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed. 3. As per order of this Court dated 03/09/2025, notice issued to the respondent could not be served as the respondent is residing in the United States of America, for which, there was direction of this Court for issuance of notice to respondent through E-mail and other applicable electronic model. As per office report dated 03/02/2026, notice issued to respondent has been served through E-mail and Whatsapp, but no one is appearing for the respondent. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. 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 3 looked at while considering transfer. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "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.” 6. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid principles, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the Transfer Petition is allowed and it is ordered that Case No. 76A of 2022 which is pending before the learned Family Court Korba, District Korba C.G. be transferred to the learned Family Court Raipur, District:Raipur, C.G. for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 8. Further, the respondent/husband would be at liberty to participate in 4 the proceedings through video conferencing/virtually unless otherwise directed by the concerned Court. 9. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Court of learned Family Court Raipur, District:Raipur, C.G. on 09.03.2026. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep