1 CGHC010268762026 2026:CGHC:31249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 17 of 2026 Amar Singh Kaushik S/o Rajnu Kaushik Aged About 64 Years Occupation - Retired / Private Work R/o Ward No. 15 Ama Bagh, Tahsil And District -Balod (C.G.). (Original Non-Applicant Before The Court Below) ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Parmila Kaushik W/o Amar Singh Kaushik Aged About 52 Years Presently Residing At New Police Line, Quarter No. 8/20. Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.).(Original Applicant Before The Court Below) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/07/2026 1. Heard Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), has been preferred AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 seeking transfer of Criminal MJC No. 379/2026 (Smt. Parmila Kaushik vs. Amar Singh Kaushik) pending before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg to the Court of the competent Family Court at Balod. 3. Brief facts necessary for the case are that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.03.2025 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs after the death of the applicant's first wife, and the marriage was duly registered. Subsequently, disputes arose between the respondent and the applicant's major children over household issues, resulting in frequent discord. On 31.12.2025, a serious quarrel took place between the parties and their family members, following which both sides lodged criminal complaints against each other. Thereafter, the respondent left the matrimonial home on 02.01.2026 and started residing separately. She subsequently instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., registered as MJC No. 379/2026, before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, seeking maintenance. The applicant, aged about 64 years and suffering from age-related ailments, claims that he is unable to undertake frequent travel from Balod to Durg to attend the proceedings and, therefore, seeks transfer of the maintenance case from the Family Court, Durg to the competent Family Court at Balod. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant is a 64-year-old senior citizen suffering from various age-related ailments and physical infirmities, owing to which he is unable to undertake frequent travel from Balod to Durg to attend the proceedings. He further submits that the applicant is dependent upon his son and other family members for travel and day-to-day assistance. The distance of approximately 60–65 kilometres between Balod and Durg causes him considerable physical hardship and prevents him from effectively contesting the proceedings before the Family Court, Durg. He also submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the maintenance proceedings are transferred to the competent Family Court at Balod, whereas refusal of such transfer would result in undue hardship and inconvenience to the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. Section 447 BNSS empowers this Court to transfer a case only when a fair and impartial trial cannot be had, a complex question of law arises, or transfer is otherwise expedient in the interest of justice or for the general convenience of all parties and witnesses. 7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the only ground urged by the petitioner for seeking transfer of the proceedings is that he is about 64 years of age and is suffering from certain age- related ailments, due to which he finds it inconvenient to travel 4 from Balod to Durg to attend the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Durg. Except the aforesaid assertion, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the petitioner is suffering from any such serious medical condition or physical incapacity which renders him incapable of undertaking the journey to Durg. No medical documents have been filed in support of the plea raised in the petition. It is well settled that transfer of a case is not to be ordered as a matter of routine or merely on the ground of inconvenience to one of the parties. The power under Section 447 of the BNSS is discretionary and is required to be exercised sparingly and only when the circumstances of the case satisfy the requirements contemplated under the said provision. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that a fair and impartial adjudication of the proceedings cannot be undertaken by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg or that any circumstance exists which would make transfer of the proceedings expedient for the ends of justice. 8. It is also to be noted that the proceeding sought to be transferred is an application for maintenance instituted by the respondent-wife before the Family Court having territorial jurisdiction. Merely because the petitioner has attained the age of 64 years, in the absence of any cogent material showing that he is physically incapable of attending the proceedings, cannot be treated as a sufficient ground for directing transfer of the case. The inconvenience pleaded by the petitioner, by itself, does not 5 outweigh the inconvenience that may be caused to the respondent if the proceedings are transferred. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no just or sufficient ground to transfer Criminal MJC No. 379/2026 from the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg to the competent Family Court at Balod. 10. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil