1 2026:CGHC:24037 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 54 of 2026 Smt. Preeti Chandravanshi W/o Avadhesh Ku. Chandravanshi Aged About 37 Years R/o - M I G 6 B, Agyay Nagar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus Avadhesh Ku. Chandravanshi S/o Lt. Kaushal Prasad Chandravanshi Aged About 37 Years R/o - Ramnagar, Ward 02, Tehsil- Kawardha And Dist. Kabirdham, C.G. ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar. Chandravanshi Order On Board 16-06-2026 Heard. 1. Petitioner /wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, “CPC, 1908”) for transfer of Civil Suit No. 12-A / 2026 (Awdhesh Kumar Chandravanshi vs. Smt. Preeti Chandravanshi) pending before the Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabeerdham to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 04.06.2015 at Kawardha, District Kabeerdham (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and rituals and they have been blessed with a girl child, aged about 10 year. After about 8 years of 2 the marriage, their relation became sour, therefore, respondent/husband never joined the company of petitioner/wife. It is next contended that the petitioner/wife is working as Shiksha Karmi and presently posted at Bilaspur whereas the respondent/husband resides at Kawardha. It is next contended that respondent / husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabeerdham bearing Civil Suit No. 12-A / 2026 (Awdhesh Kumar Chandravanshi vs. Smt. Preeti Chandravanshi) against the petitioner /wife and the petitioner/wife, being mother of minor child aged about 10 years and furher the distance between aforesaid two places i.e. 200 kms to and fro, it would be difficult for her to travel such a long distance to attend court proceedings at the Kawardha court from Bilaspur. It is next contended that one maintenance case i.e. MJC (Cr.) Case No. 227 of 2026 is already pending against the respondent /husband before Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, in which notice has already been issued to the respondent, therefore, if Civil Suit No. 12-A / 2026 is transferred from Family Court, Kawardha to Family Court, Bilaspur, then it would be convenient for respondent / husband also. Hence, he prays that the transfer petition may be allowed and the Civil Suit No. 12- A /2026 filed by respondent/husband may be transferred from Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent / husband submits that though distance between aforesaid two places is about 100 kms, but there is direct and frequent bus connectivity between these two places, hence, the transfer petition filed by the petitioner / wife is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The petitioner / wife is said to be the mother of minor girl child, aged about 10 years and one maintenance case i.e. MJC (Cr.) No. 227 / 26 is already pending against the respondent / husband before the Family Court, Bilaspur, therefore, if Civil Suit No. 12-A / 2026 (Awdhesh Kumar Chandravanshi vs. Smt. Preeti Chandravanshi) is transferred from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Kawardha (C.G.) to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bilaspur (C.G.), then it would not cause any difficulty to the respondent/husband, as otherwise also he has come to Bilaspur to attend hearing of the maintenance case filed the petitioner/wife. 6. 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.” 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh -v- Kumar Sanjay and another [(2001) 10 SCC 41] has observed that if husband files suit against 4 wife, then convenience of wife must be looked into. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter 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. 8. Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of his order and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforecited cases; it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Civil Suit No. 12-A / 2026 (Awdhesh Kumar Chandravanshi vs. Smt. Preeti Chandravanshi) pending before the Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabeerdham (C.G.) be transferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Bilaspur for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur shall expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within period of sixty days from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. 11. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.17 17:39:35 +0530 5