1 CGHC010186342026 2026:CGHC:27710 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 74 of 2026 Sonam Hablani Daughter Of Suresh Makhija, Wife Of Prem Hablani, Aged About 31 Years Resident Of Sindhi Colony, Pakki Kholi, Police Station - Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Prem Hablani Son Of Late Shri Sarvanand Hablani, Aged About 33 Years Resident Of Shivanand Nagar, Shree Nagar Sector 3, Gudhiyari, Police Station - Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06.07.2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Case No.1114/25 (Prem Hablani vs. Sonam Hablani) pending before Family Court, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) to Family Court Raigarh (CG). 2. Fact of the case, in brief are that, marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 26.06.2020 according to the Hindu rituals and customs. After few months of the marriage, due to mental and physical torture committed by the respondent/ husband to the petitioner/wife, she left his company BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2026.07.07 10:54:42 +0530 2 and is residing in Raigarh with her parents. The respondent/husband has filed divorce petition bearing Case No.1114/25 (Prem Hablani vs. Sonam Hablani), which is pending before Family Court, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG). The petitioner/wife has filed the present transfer petition seeking transfer of the said matrimonial case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has instituted Criminal Case No. 887/2022 under Sections 498A/34 of the IPC, which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, against the respondent and his family members, and they have already entered their appearance in the said proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that distance between Raipur and Raigarh is about 240 Km and since the petitioner is residing in Raigarh, it would be difficult for her to travel such distance to attend the Court proceedings at Raipur. She further submits that it is settled law that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. Hence, it is prayed that present transfer petition may be allowed and the petition bearing Case No.1114/25 (Prem Hablani vs. Sonam Hablani), which is pending before Family Court, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) be transferred to Family Court Raigarh (CG). 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submission made on behalf the petitioner and submits that though distance between aforesaid two places is 240 Km, but there is direct rail connectivity between these places, hence, it would not be difficult for the petitioner to attend the Court proceedings in the Court of Raipur. He further submits that aforesaid criminal case is pending since 2022 and family members of the petitioner are threatening the respondent and his family members, therefore, it is prayed that this transfer petition may be rejected. 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 3 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. As per the petitioner, Criminal Case No.887/2022 for the offence under Section 498A/34 IPC is pending before Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh against the respondent and his family members, and he has to attend that proceeding, hence, it would be convenient for the respondent/husband also if Case No.1114/25 (Prem Hablani vs. Sonam Hablani) pending before Family Court, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) is transferred to Family Court Raigarh (CG). 9. Considering the fact situation of the case and also considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife’s convenience must be looked into, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 10. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Case No.1114/25 (Prem Hablani vs. Sonam Hablani) pending before Family Court, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) be transferred to Family Court Raigarh (CG) for its trial/ disposal 4 in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Raigarh, within a period of 15 days. 11. Further, the Judge, Family Court, Raigarh 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 Court. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. If the personal appearance of the respondent is not required, he may be permitted to appear through Video Conferencing. 12. 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