1 2026:CGHC:25929 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 40 of 2026 Smt. Shaily Sharma W/o Vivan Shukla Aged About 30 Years R/o 62 Ashiyana, Dev Nagar Ghuru, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) At Present Through Father Shri Virendra Sharma, Akoli Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Shri Vivan Shukla S/o Dinesh Kumar Shukla Aged About 30 Years R/o 62 Ashiyana, Dev Nagar Ghuru, P.S. Sakri, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Tapan Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ankit Pandey, Advocate through Video Conferencing (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 24.06.2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of HM Case No.665/2025 (Vivan Shukla vs. Smt. Shaily Sharma) pending before Family Court, Bilaspur (CG) to Family Court Raipur (CG). 2. Fact of the case, in brief are that, marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 25.02.2024 according to the Hindu rituals and customs. After the marriage, both the parties were residing at Bangalore as both of them were working there. However, after a few BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.06.25 13:39:01 +0530 2 months of the marriage, their relation become strained and since then they have been living separately. Subsequently, the respondent/husband filed application under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking decree of divorce, before Family Court, Bilaspur, which was registered as HM Case No.665/2025. The petitioner/wife has filed the present transfer petition seeking transfer of the said matrimonial case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitoner submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Raipur, where her parents are also residing. Although the petitioner is presently employed in Bangalore, it would be difficult and inconvenient for her to attend the proceedings before the Family Court at Bilaspur, as there is no direct air connectivity between Bangalore and Bilaspur. However, direct air connectivity is available between Bangalore and Raipur, making it more convenient for the petitioner to travel and attend the court proceedings at Raipur. Hence, it is prayed that divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband be transferred from Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur to Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. 4. Respondent has filed reply. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent through Video Conferencing submits that the petitioner is not residing at Raipur but is presently residing and working at Bangalore. Therefore, if at all the divorce petition is to be transferred, the same may be transferred to a competent court at Bangalore, otherwise, it may continue before the Family Court at Bilaspur. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent/husband is residing at Bilaspur and would be put to inconvenience if the case is transferred to Raipur. It is, therefore, prayed that the present transfer petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 3 6. It is settled proposition of law that in the matrimonial dispute, while deciding the transfer petition, convenience of the wife ordinarily deserves preference over that of the husband. 7. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Raipur and is presently employed at Bangalore. It has been specifically pleaded that there is no direct air connectivity between Bilaspur and Bangalore, whereas direct air connectivity is available between Bangalore and Raipur. The respondent/husband, on the other hand, is residing at Bilaspur. In such circumstances, the contention of the respondent that the divorce petition should be transferred to Bangalore is not sustainable. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has consistently been held that, in matrimonial matters, the convenience of the wife should be looked into, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is a fit one for transfer of the matrimonial proceedings, as prayed for by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that HM Case No.665/2025 (Vivan Shukla vs. Smt. Shaily Sharma) pending before Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (CG) be transferred to Family Court Raipur (CG) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (CG), is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, within a period of 15 days. 10. Further, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur 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 4 Court. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. 11. In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini