1 2026:CGHC:26466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 69 of 2026 Chitra Pamnani W/o Dr. Rajesh Dhruv Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 03, A Simran Heights, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. versus Rajesh Dhruv S/o Late C.R. Dhruv Aged About 48 Years R/o Hikami Para, Ramaiya Ward, P.S. Kotwali, Tehsil- Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit (A Class) No.108A/2025 pending before the Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar to Family Court Raipur. 2. As per the contents of the transfer petition, the marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 18.11.2005. They blessed with twin sons out of their wedlock who are minor at present. After some time of marriage, relation between applicant and respondent become sore. Subsequently, the petitioner started residing at Raipur and filed an application for grant of maintenance at Raipur. Thereafter, the respondent/husband filed an application for divorce before Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.06.30 16:26:19 +0530 2 the Family Court, Jagdalpur, the transfer of which is sought in the present petition. It is also submitted that the distance between the two places is approximately 303 km, making it difficult and inconvenient for the wife to travel and return on the same day. To support his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Another (2001) 10 SCC 41, Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, and NCV Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, emphasizing the settled position of law that the convenience of the wife is to be preferred over that of the husband. In view of these submissions, he prays for the transfer of the divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, from the Family Court, Jagdalpur, to the Family Court, Raipur. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband, referring to the reply, submits that both parties were previously residing together with their children. He states that the respondent/husband, being a Government Pediatrician, was initially transferred from Jagdalpur to Raipur, where the family lived together. Subsequently, in the year 2018, the respondent/husband was transferred from Raipur to Dantewada, where he is currently posted at the District Medical Hospital, Dantewada, and holds the post of Head of the Department (Pediatrics). It is further submitted that both minor children are residing with the husband at Dantewada. Learned counsel also submits that that while notice has been served on the respondent regarding the maintenance case, it was the wife who left the husband's company voluntarily and levelled false allegations against him. He submits that since the husband is a Pediatrician (Child Specialist) posted at the 3 District Hospital, Dantewada, and he is sole guardian for the two minor children, it would be extremely difficult for him to travel from Dantewada to Raipur. He clarifies that although the husband is posted in Dantewada, the marriage was solemnized at Jagdalpur, which is why the divorce petition was filed before the Family Court, Jagdalpur. Accordingly, he prays that the transfer petition be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. 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 that 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. 6. From the aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is explicit that the convenience of the wife is generally given importance in matrimonial transfer applications, however, in the present case it is not in dispute that the respondent/husband is a Government Pediatrician (Child Specialist) serving at the District Medical Hospital, Dantewada, and holds a 4 position as Head of the Department. Crucially, the twin minor children of the parties are residing under care and protection of husband at Dantewada. 7. If the husband is required to travel from Dantewada to Raipur to attend the proceedings, it would not only disrupt his essential medical duties at a government facility but would also severely prejudice the care and well- being of the two minor children who are dependent on him. On the other hand, the petitioner/wife is residing without children at Raipur. 8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by balancing the conveniences. The inconvenience to the public medical service and the minor children outweighs the traveling inconvenience of the wife. 9. Consequently, the present transfer petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The Family Court, Jagdalpur, shall expedite the proceedings of Civil Suit No.108A/2025. 10. However, considering that the distance between Jagdalpur and Raipur is approximately 303 km, the applicant/wife shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for interim maintenance in the maintenance case, as well as an application in the pending divorce petition for the grant of traveling expenses. Any such application shall be considered by the concerned Family Court in accordance with the law. 11. Further, the applicant/wife is also at liberty to join the proceedings before the concerned Family Court through Video Conferencing on dates when her personal appearance is not explicitly required by the concerned Court. 12. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Ajay Judge