1 2026:CGHC:24681 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 183 of 2025 Smt. Pratiksha Yadu W/o Smt. Abhishek Yadav Aged About 34 Years R/o C/o Shri Yogendra Yadav, Behind Krishna Bhavan, Kota Gudhiyari Road, Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus Abhishek Yadav S/o Shri Shobharam Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Silidih, Tehsil And District Dhamtari C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Himanshu Kunjan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shamsuddin Mirza, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 18.06.2026 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 Case No. 139 of 2025 (Abhishek Yadav Vs. Smt. Pratiksha Yadu) pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband in the year 2018as per Hindu rites and customs. After few months of the marriage, their relation became sour, therefore, the petitioner/wife is residing alongwith her parents at 2 Raipur since 21.11.2021, hence, the respondent/husband has filed application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for judicial separation before Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G). He further submits that the distance between Raipur to Dhamtari is 80 kms. and the petitioner / wife has also filed maintenance application under Section 144 of the BNSS before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur bearing MCC/1533/24, in which, the respondent has already entered his appearance, therefore, it would be convenient for the respondent / husband also, if aforesaid matrimonial case is transferred from Family Court Dhamtari to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, hence, he prays that the transfer petition may be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent / husband would submit that though distance between said two places is 80 kms, but there is direct and frequent bus connectivity between these two places. He further submits that the respondent is ready to bear the expenditure of the petitioner / wife, hence, the transfer petition may be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The distance between aforesaid two places is said to be 80 kms. and one maintenance case i.e. MCC No. 1533 of 24 filed by the petitioner /wife is already pending against the respondent / husband before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, therefore, if Case No. 139 of 2025 (Abhishek Yadav Vs. Smt. Pratiksha Yadu) pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) is transferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur then it would not cause any difficulty to the 3 respondent/husband, as otherwise also he has come to Raipur 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 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 this 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 Case No. 139 of 2025 (Abhishek Yadav Vs. Smt. Pratiksha Yadu) pending 4 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (C.G.) be transferred to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court at Raipur for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur shall expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. 11. It is made clear that both the parties shall cooperate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the case. 12. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.22 10:44:54 +0530