1 2026:CGHC:25687 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 39 of 2026 Smt. Sarla Dewangan W/o Shri Kamal Narayan Dewangan Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 14, Nanak Ward, North Jhagrakhand, Tehsil Manendragarh, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus Shri Kamal Narayan Dewangan S/o Nand Kumar Dewangan Aged About 48 Years R/o Ashirwad Villa, Bangalipara, Laxmi Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Harashmandar Rastogi, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 23/06/2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of HMA Case No.810/2025 pending before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur to the Family Court, Manendragarh (CG). 2. As per the contents of the transfer petition, the marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 08.05.2006. They blessed with two daughter and a son from their wedlock. After birth of second girl child, relationship between the parties turned sour, and the respondent ousted the wife from the matrimonial home on Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.06.25 10:21:53 +0530 2 11.06.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner started residing at her parental house at North Jhagrakhand in District Manendragarh. The FIR has also been lodged against the respondent at Police Station Tikrapara Raipur in Crime No.510/2025. Thereafter, the respondent/husband filed an application for divorce before the Family Court, Raipur in HMA No.810/2025, the transfer of which is sought in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits for attending divorce proceedings the petitioner is required to travel about 630 Kms to and fro. and since petitioner has no one to accompany her with or without children, it would be difficult for her to travel this distance to attend the Court proceedings time and again. He also submits that the wife has filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Manendragrah bearing MJC No.176/2025 and application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act which is pending learned JMFC, Manendragarh bearing MJC No.36/2025, which are currently pending consideration and husband has also entered his appearance in the cases. It is further submitted that it is well-settled law that the convenience of the wife must be looked into while considering a transfer petition. Therefore, it is prayed that the transfer petition may be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer for transfer and submits that a to-and-fro distance of 630 kms to and fro, but there is direct train connectivity between Raipur to Manendragarh. He further submits that the wife herself has left the husband and she has levelled wrong allegations on him. Hence, he prays that the transfer petition may be rejected. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 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 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. 8. It appears that the petitioner/wife is taking care of three children and residing at her parental home in Manendragarh. Compelling her to travel a distance of approximately 630 kilometers to and fro to attend the divorce proceedings at Raipur would cause immense hardship, especially when two 4 other matrimonial litigations are already pending against the respondent/husband in Manendragarh where he has entered his appearance. 9. 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, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the divorce case filed by the respondent. 10. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that case bearing HMA Case No.810/2025 (Kamal Narayan Dewangan Vs. Smt. Sarla Dewangan) pending before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur be transferred to the Family Court, Manendragarh (CG), for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 11. The concerned Court is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid case to the transferee Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt or communication of this order. 12. Thereafter, the transferee Family Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the Family Court for the early disposal of the case. 13. However, the respondent/husband is at liberty to join the proceedings before the concerned Family Court through Video Conferencing on dates when his personal appearance is not explicitly required by the concerned Court. 14. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay