1 CGHC010198982026 2026:CGHC:30832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 82 of 2026 Smt. Sakshi Verma W/o Shri Nitesh Verma Aged About 33 Years Resident Of E- 18 Vijayapuram Near Sai Mandir Seepat Road Sarkanda Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner. Versus Nitesh Verma S/o Shri Sushil Verma Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Flat No.1, Parshwa Vihar Rohinipuram Gol Chowk Opposite Sai Baba Temple D.D.U. Nagar Raipur Ravishankar University Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') seeking the transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband, bearing Case No.HMA- 150/2026 (Nitesh Verma Vs. Smt. Sakshi Verma) from the Family Court Raipur, District Raipur to the Family Court Bilaspur, District Bilapur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.22 12:16:26 +0530 2 04.11.2017, and out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a son named Piyan Verma. However, after some time of marriage, the respondent started harassing the petitioner and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, due to which the petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she started residing at her parental house in Bilaspur with her minor child. She had also filed a maintenance case against the respondent/husband at the Family Court, Bilaspur, bearing MJC No. 80/2022, which was allowed. However, since the respondent has not complied with the order of maintenance, Execution Case No. 99/2024 was registered against him by the wife, which remains pending before the Family Court at Bilaspur. He further submits that the petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to travel to the Family Court, Raipur, for every hearing due to the round-trip distance of approximately 240 kilometers from her current residence. He also contends that it is a well-settled position of law that the convenience of the wife must be kept paramount while considering a transfer petition. Therefore, he prays that the transfer petition be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that there is direct bus and train connectivity between the two places, and the distance is not too far. He also submits that the allegations of physical and mental cruelty leveled by the wife are baseless, as the FIR previously registered by the wife against the husband subsequently registered as Criminal Case No. 2451/2021, resulted in the acquittal of the respondent by the trial Court. Apart from that, he submits that the respondent/husband is ready to pay the travel expenses to 3 the wife. In view of these submissions, he prays for the dismissal of the transfer petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 5. 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. 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. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the well- settled legal position that the convenience of the wife is paramount in 4 matrimonial disputes, and the fact that the petitioner-wife is caring for a minor child at Bilaspur while already pursuing maintenance execution proceedings there, and further considering that requiring her to travel approximately 240 kilometers back and forth to Raipur for every hearing would cause undue hardship, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court at Bilaspur. 8. Consequently, the transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Case No. HMA-150/2026 (Nitesh Verma v. Smt. Sakshi Verma) pending before the Family Court, Raipur be transferred to the Family Court, Bilaspur for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 9. The transferor Court is directed to transmit the record of the case to the transferee Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt or communication of this order. 10. Further, the transferee Family Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties are directed to cooperate with the Family Court for an early and efficacious disposal of the case. 11. However, the respondent/husband shall be at liberty to join the proceedings before the Family Court through video conferencing on dates when his personal appearance is not explicitly required by the court. 12. Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay