1 2026:CGHC:22582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 208 of 2025 1 - Simran Yadav W/o Nimesh Yadav, Aged About 28 Years R/o Through Phul Chand Yadav, Ganesh Enclave Colony, Choti Koni, Near Santosh Indian Oil Petrol Pump, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner/Applicant versus 1 - Nimesh Yadav S/o Anil Kumar Yadav, Aged About 27 Years R/o Sai Nagar Urla, Nahar Nali Road, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title, as taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Ankita Gourha, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order On Board 13/05/2026 1. The applicant/wife has filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.A/913/2025 {Nimesh Yadav vs. Simran Yadav}, pending before the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) to RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.05.14 10:48:37 +0530 2 the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife would submit that marriage of applicant/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 12.12.2024 as per the Hindu rituals and customs. Subsequently, their relation became sore, and the applicant/wife is residing along with her parents at Bilaspur. He would further submit that respondent/husband has filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (henceforth referred to as the ‘Act, 1955’) for annulment of marriage, which is pending as Civil Suit No.A/913/2025 before learned 1st Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg. He further submitted that the applicant/wife has filed an application under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short “BNSS”) seeking maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (CG) and an application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur. The applicant/wife has also lodged an FIR against respondent/husband in Mahila Thana, Bilaspur bearing Crime No.57/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2) and 3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for shot ‘BNS’), in which the charge sheet has already been filed before the concerned Judicial Magistrare at Bilaspur. Learned counsel further submitted that the distance between Bilaspur and Durg is about 150-200 km and, being a lady with no independent source of income, it would be difficult for the applicant/wife to travel such long distance, whereas if application (for declaration of marriage as ‘null and void’) is transferred from Durg to Bilaspur, then it would also be convenient for respondent /husband, as he is already attending proceedings in the aforesaid three cases at Bilaspur. Therefore, it is 3 prayed that the said application may be allowed and Civil Suit No.A/913/2025 filed by respondent/husband be transferred from the Court of 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg to the Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). 3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband, referring to the reply, would submit that the applicant/wife is well-educated, professionally qualified, and financially independent. She was appointed as a Pre-Sales Consultant (Executive / Level 1A) with Power of Flow Realty LLP, Bangalore, vide appointment letter dated 27.01.2023, and was drawing a substantial annual compensation of approximately Rs.4,66,000/-, with a monthly gross salary of around Rs.30,500/- and a net salary of approximately Rs.28,000/-. It is therefore contended that the applicant, being an educated and qualified lady, would not face any difficulty in travelling from Bilaspur to Durg. She further submitted that the applicant/wife has not disclosed any genuine or compelling ground warranting transfer of case. She also placed reliance on the case Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Rani Jethmalani, {(1979) 4 SCC 167}, wherein it was held that transfer cannot be granted on mere convenience or apprehension unless there is a real and substantial cause affecting justice. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at para 9 which reads as under:- 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.” 6. 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. 7. As contended by learned counsel for the parties, three cases filed by the applicant/wife against respondent/husband, i.e. maintenance case filed under Section 144 of the BNSS; the criminal case in which charge sheet has been filed against respondent; and the application under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 are already pending consideration before the Family Court / Criminal Court at Bilaspur. It has also not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent that the respondent / husband has been attending hearings in the aforesaid cases before the concerned 5 Courts at Bilaspur. 8. Having considered the fact situation of the case, and particularly the fact that various cases filed by the applicant / wife against respondent / husband are pending before the Courts at Bilaspur, this Court is of the opinion that transfer of Civil Suit No.A/913/2025 from the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg to the Family Court, Bilaspur would also be convenient for respondent / husband, as he is already appearing before the Court at Bilaspur in aforesaid cases. 9. Further, in view of the principles laid down in the aforecited case laws of Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's convenience must be looked into, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is fit one for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 10. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No.A/913/2025 {Nimesh Yadav versus Simran Yadav} pending before the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG), be transferred to the Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. The 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid Civil Suit No.A/913/2025 to the Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of a copy of this order. 11. It is further directed that after receiving the case on transfer, the Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur shall consider and decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferring Court. The parties 6 are also directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. 12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar