1 CGHC010237642026 2026:CGHC:30544 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 101 of 2026 Sunil Basant S/o Ramlal Basant Aged About 35 Years Occupation - Assistant Teacher ( L.B.), R/o - Rajeev Nagar, Mitthumuda, Raigarh Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. (Applicant) ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - Smt. Shakuntala Basant W/o Sunil Basant Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Kharkena P.S. And Tehsil - Dabhra, District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ( Non- Applicants) 2 - Minor Yash Basant S/o Sunil Basant Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Shakuntala Basant, R/o Village - Kharkena P.S. And Tehsil - Dabhra, District - Sakti, Chhattisgarh. ( Son) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 20/07/2026 1. The petitioner/husband has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') seeking the transfer of the application filed by him under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, bearing Civil MJC No.F-12/2023 (Sunil Basant Vs. Smt. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2026.07.21 11:35:48 +0530 2 Shakuntala and another), from the Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh to the Family Court, Sakti, District Sakti. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 07.05.2015 at Sakti in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, the parties were blessed with a son, Yash (respondent No. 2), on 03.11.2016. After some time, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, and respondent No. 1, along with her minor son, has been residing separately at Sakti since 27.06.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the aforementioned application under Section 25 of the Act of 1890 for the custody of respondent No. 2 (presently aged about 6 years) before the Family Court, Raigarh. However, respondent No. 1 raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction before the Raigarh Family Court, contending that since the minor child resides with her at Sakti, the Family Court at Raigarh lacks the jurisdiction to hear the matter. Hence, the petitioner himself is willing to transfer the case to the Family Court, Sakti for convenience of both the parties. 3. Learned counsel for respondent stated no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 4. 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. 3 5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, nature of case for which transfer is sought, also considering the joint convenience of the parties, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to allow the petition. 6. Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed. 7. It is directed that the case bearing Civil MJC No. F-12/2023 (Sunil Basant Vs. Smt. Shakuntala and another) pending before the Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh be transferred to the Family Court, Sakti, District Sakti for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law. 8. The Family Court, Raigarh is directed to transmit the record of the case to the Family Court, Sakti within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt or communication of this order. 9. Further, the transferee Family Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of 2 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. 10. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court Sakti on 20.08.2026. 11. The petitioner/husband is also at liberty to join the proceedings before the concerned Family Court through Video Conferencing as and when required, after permission of the concerned Family Court. 12. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay