1 2026:CGHC:1622 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 201 of 2025 Smt. Mala Pradhan W/o Shri Balaram Pradhan Aged About 49 Years C/o Tirith Ram Lasar, Kirana Store Pisaud, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Balaram Pradhan S/o Shatruhan Prasad Pradhan Aged About 50 Years R/o Sector 4, Road No. 26, Qtr. No. 2/G, Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Verma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 12/01/2026 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 382/2022 (Balaram Pradhan Vs. Smt. Mala Pradhan), filed under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage act pending in the Court of learned Principle Judge Family Court Durg, C.G. to the Court of learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Janjgir C.G. 2. The facts, in brief, is that, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 01.05.1996. Out of their wedlock, two children were born. While the parties were residing together, the respondent–husband filed a petition for divorce and, in the year 2005, obtained an ex-parte judgment and decree against JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.01.13 10:15:26 +0530 2 the petitioner–wife. Consequent thereto, the petitioner was ousted from the matrimonial home and since then she has been residing with her parents at Janjgir–Champa along with her two minor children. Aggrieved by the ex-parte decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing FAM No. 45 of 2015. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Division Bench of this Court, whereby the ex- parte judgment and decree dated 22.03.2006 were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Family Court, Durg for adjudication on merits. In pursuance thereof, Civil Suit No. 382-A/2022 has been restored to its original number by the learned Family Court, Durg, vide order dated 14.03.2022. At present, the matrimonial dispute under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending before the Family Court, Durg and the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present application for transfer of the case from Durg to Janjgir has been filed on the ground that the petitioner is suffering from severe cervical pain, as a result of which she is unable to move and has been advised complete bed rest. In support of the said contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on medical prescriptions dated 16.10.2025, 31.10.2025 and 10.11.2025. He further submits that due to the aforesaid medical condition, the petitioner could not appear before the concerned Family Court on the relevant date and, therefore, she moved an application for condonation of non- appearance on 13.11.2025. The said application has already been considered by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, and 3 thereafter the matter has been fixed for further proceedings on 09.12.2025. On a pointed query about the proceedings of 09.12.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to explain. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no sufÏcient or cogent ground to warrant transfer of the case. The medical grounds urged by the petitioner have already been taken into consideration by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, who has dealt with the petitioner’s application for condonation of non-appearance and fixed the matter for further proceedings. The order-sheets further reflect that the case has been pending at the stage of defendant’s evidence since 07.05.2025 and the petitioner has been seeking adjournments on one or other pretext. Learned Family Court has also summoned Dr. Anil Gupta who had prescribed 12 weeks bed rest to the petitioner/ defendant. Even in response to a specific query regarding the proceedings dated 09.12.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation. In view of the above, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstance demonstrating hardship or prejudice, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for transfer is made out. 6. Accordingly, the transfer petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti