1 2026:CGHC:24713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 57 of 2026 Smt. Gangotri Aaditya W/o Kishor Aaditya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Sarangarh Fuljharihapara Post- And Tahsil- Sarangarh District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) At Present R/o Village- Kharod Tahsil Pamgarh District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Name Of Petitioner In Carretly Mentioned As Per Affidavit ) ... Petitioner versus Kishor Aaditya S/o Dhruw Aaditya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sarangarh Fuljharihapara Post And Tahsil Sarangarh District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent : None present, though served. {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 Civil Suit No. A50/2025 (Kishor Aaditya vs. Smt. Gangotri Aaditya) pending before Family Court, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (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 2018 as 2 per Hindu rites and customs, but after four years of their marriage, respondent/husband started harassing her physically and mentally and ousted her in the year 2022, therefore, petitioner/wife is residing alongwith her parents at village Kharoud, Tehsil – Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa. It is further contended that respondent / husband has filed application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce before the Family Court, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), which was registered as Civil Suit No. A/50/2025. It is next contended that that distance between Sarangarh- Bilaigarh & Janjgir Chama is about 160 kms. to and fro and parents of the petitioner/wife are old aged person and there is other family member to accompany her to travel between aforesaid two places. It is next contended that one maintenance bearing MJC Case No. 423 of 25 filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband is already pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, in which, respondent / husband has already entered his appearance, therefore, it would not be difficult for him to come to attend the case at Janjgir-Champa, if Civil Suit bearing No. A/50/2025 is transferred from Family Court, Sarangarh, District Sarnangarh-Bilaigarh to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court Janjgir Champa, hence, he prays that transfer petition may be allowed. 3. Despite service of notice, neither respondent / husband appeared nor represented by any counsel. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. The distance between aforesaid two places is said to be 160 kms. to and fro and one maintenance case i.e. MJC No. 423 of 2025 filed by the petitioner /wife is already pending against the respondent / husband before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), 3 therefore, if Civil Suit No. A50/2025 (Kishor Aaditya vs. Smt. Gangotri Aaditya) filed by the respondent/husband before Family Court, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) is transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) then it would not cause any difficulty to the respondent/husband, as otherwise also he has come to Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa 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. 4 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 Civil Suit No. A50/2025 (Kishor Aaditya vs. Smt. Gangotri Aaditya) pending before Family Court, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa within a period of 15 days. 10. It is further directed that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa 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 Family 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: 2026.06.23 18:07:12 +0530