1 2026:CGHC:23220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 45 of 2026 Anupama Singh W/o Shri Vinay Kumar Shrivastava, D/o Late Shivpratap Singh Aged About 54 Years R/o H. No. 10/1685, Sector 01, Near Durga Mandir, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai-02, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh At Present Mahalpara Baikunthpur, Tahsil And P.S. Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh Mob No. 9926130573 ... Applicant. Versus Vinay Kumar Shrivastava S/o Shri Badrilal Shrivastava Aged About 60 Years R/o H. No. 10/1685, Sector 01, Near Durga Mandir, Shivanand Nagar, Khamtarai-02, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Mob No. 9329110053 ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Applicant : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 15/05/2026 1. The Petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of divorce case bearing HMA No.1047/2025 (Vinay Kumar Shrivatava Vs. Anupama Singh) pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 (CG) to the Judge, Family Court Camp Court Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that the petitioner is second wife of the respondent and her marriage was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 15.12.2012 in accordance Hindu rites at Arya Samaj Raipur. There are two daughters of respondent from her first wife and first wife of petitioner has died. He further submits that after marriage with respondent, within few years of their marriage, relationship of petitioner and respondent turned sour. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed aforesaid divorce petition before the Family Court Raipur for which transfer is sought. He would further submit that distance between Baikuthpur and Raipur is about 250 Kms (500 kms in going and coming back) and since the petitioner is residing with one mentally challenged daughter, it would be difficult for her to travel such distance to attend the Court proceedings at Raipur. He also submits that present petitioner is posted as Child Development Officer at Baikunthpur and residing. In such circumstances, the aforesaid case filed by the petitioner be transferred concerned Court at Baikunthpur. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the transfer petition and submits that though the distance between Raipur and Baikutnhpur is 250 Km, but there is frequent train and bus connectivity between these two places. He also submits that petitioner is residing with her mother and sister at Baikunthpur who can lookafter the mentally retarded daughter and, therefore, there is no difficulty for the petitioner to come and return from Raipur Hence, the transfer petition may be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 3 5. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held 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.” 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh -v- Kumar Sanjay and another [(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 case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi -v- Kishore Babulal Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. 7. The petitioner is posted as a Child Development Officer in Baikunthpur, and the total travel distance between Raipur and Baikunthpur, including the return travel, is approximately 500 kilometers. Further, the mentally retarded daughter of the parties is residing with petitioner at Baikunthpur. 8. Considering the fact' situation of the case and also considering the aforecited law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife’s convenience must be looked into, 4 this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the divorce case filed by the respondent. 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that case bearing HMA No.1047/2025 pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur (CG) be transferred to the Court of Judge, Family Court Camp Court Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. The concerned Court is directed to transmit the record of aforesaid case to the Family Court Camp Court Baikunthpur, Korba, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/communication of this order. 10. Further, the Family Court Camp Court Baikunthpur, Korba, is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. 11. However, it is observed that if personal appearance of the respondent/husband is not required, then he may be permitted to join concerned Family Court through Video Conferencing. 12. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay