1 CGHC010515392025 2026:CGHC:27881 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 199 of 2025 Smt. Bhagwati Sharma W/o Shri Sandeep Bhatt Aged About 26 Years R/o- Bemetara Ward No. 20, Kurmipara Bemetara, Thana Avm Tahsil Avm Jila Bemetara (C.G.), Haal Mukam- Devridih, Thana- Torwa, Jila- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner. Versus Sandeep Bhatt S/o Santosh Bhatt Aged About 33 Years R/o Bemetara Ward No. 20, Kabeer Kutti Ke Peeche Kurmipara, Bemetara Tahsil Avm Thana Avm Jila- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Sudhir Verma with Ms. Anju Verma, Adv(s). (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 07/07/2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') read with Section 10(1) of the Family Courts Act for transfer of application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing Civil Suit No.A/45/2023 pending before the learned Family Court Bemetara to learned Family Court Bilaspur. 2. As per the contents of the transfer petition, the marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 27.06.2020. Sometime after the marriage, the relationship between the Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.07 17:17:58 +0530 2 parties turned sour, and the petitioner wife started residing at matrimonial home at Bilaspur with her father since last 4-5 years. Subsequently, the respondent/husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bemtara, the transfer of which is sought in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within a short period of their marriage, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent became sore. He further submits that the distance between Bemtara to Bilaspur is 200 km to and fro, and since the petitioner's father is suffering from serious disease of cancer and there is no other male member in her family to support her, it would be difficult for her to travel such distance to attend the Court proceedings time and again. He also submits that the wife has filed an application for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Bilaspur bearing MJC No.558/2026, which is currently pending consideration. 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 200 km is not excessive, especially when there is direct bus and train connectivity. He further submits that the wife filed the maintenance case recently and husband has not been served with the notice in the said case. Hence, he prays that the transfer petition may be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 3 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. Based on the facts and settled legal principles, considering the distance of 200 km to and fro, the severe illness of father of the petitioner, and the absence of any other family member to accompany her, travelling to Bemetara and return same day may cause hardship. Furthermore, since a maintenance case filed by the wife is already pending at Bilaspur, it will be appropriate for both matrimonial disputes to be heard in the same location. 4 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 Civil Suit No.A/45/2023 pending before the learned Family Court Bemetara be transferred to the learned Family Court, Bilaspur 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. Further, 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 Court. 14. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay