1 CGHC010040412026 2026:CGHC:28836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 19 of 2026 Smt. Manisha Mirche W/o Vijay Kumar Mirche Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram And Post Tekari, (Mandhar), P.S. Vidhansabha, Tehsil Dharsiva, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. versus Vijay Kumar Mirche S/o Late Palharram Mirche Aged About 36 Years R/o Gram Mudhiyadih, Post Jhara, P.S. Khallari, Tehsil And Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Ms. Afsha Anjum, Advocate For Respondent : None though notice has been served. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') seeking the transfer of the divorce application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, bearing Case No. 56A/2025 (Vijay Kumar Mirche Vs. Manisha Mirche), from the Family Court Mahasamund to the Family Court Raipur. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.12 13:30:34 +0530 2 2. As per the contents of the transfer petition, the marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 10.02.2019 at Raipur. Sometime after the marriage, the relationship between the parties turned sour, and the petitioner/wife started residing at her parental home in Raipur. Subsequently, the respondent/husband filed the application for divorce under Section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the transfer of which is sought in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is living separately due to cruelty committed by the husband and husband is not willing to live with the petitioner without any rhyme or reason. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to travel to Mahasamund for every hearing, given the distance of approximately 120 kilometers to and fro. She has also filed an application for maintenance against the respondent under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), bearing Case No. 34/2026, which is pending before the Family Court Raipur. She further submits that there is no other male member in her family to support her, making it exceptionally difficult to travel such a distance to attend court proceedings time and again. It is further submitted that it is well-settled law that the convenience of the wife must be paramount while considering a transfer petition. Therefore, it is prayed that the transfer petition may be allowed. 4. Though notice has been duly served upon the respondent, no one has appeared on his behalf. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the settled legal position that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial disputes, and the fact that a maintenance case filed by the petitioner is already pending before the Family Court Raipur, it will be inconvenient for her to travel a distance of approximately 120 kilometers to and fro solely to attend each and every hearing. 4 9. Consequently considering the settled law and submission made by the applicant, the transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Case No. 56A/2025 (Vijay Kumar Mirche Vs. Manisha Mirche) currently pending before the Family Court Mahasamund, be transferred to the Family Court Raipur for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay