1 CGHC010214942026 2026:CGHC:31121 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 93 of 2026 Smt. Laxmi Rao Dongre W/o Paras Ramtekey Aged About 32 Years Presently Resident At C- 30 Ward No. 55 Imlibhata, Bandhwapara, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner. Cersus Paras Ramtekey S/o Hariram Ramtekey Aged About 38 Years Resident Flat No. 01, 5th Flour Memple Town, Apartment Borsi, Hanoda Durg Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) Present Address Road No. 07, Pradeepti Nagar Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 22/07/2026 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.317/2026 (Paras Ramtekey Vs. Laxmi Rao) from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg to the Family Court, Bilaspur. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.23 10:25:48 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner /wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 16.06.2021. However, after 4-5 years 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. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards a copy of FIR No. 232/2026, registered by the petitioner at Police Station Mohannagar, Durg, against the respondent for offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), and 3(5) of the BNS. Thereafter, the petitioner started residing at her parental house in Bilaspur. Subsequently, the respondent/husband filed a divorce petition against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to travel to the Family Court, Durg, for every hearing due to the distance of approximately 151 kilometers from her current residence. Counsel 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, it is prayed 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 excessive. He further submits that the brother of the petitioner is threatening the respondent/husband, due to which a complaint (Annexure-R/2) was lodged at Police Station Padmanabhpur, Durg, on 29.03.2026. He also submits that the respondent/husband is ready to bear the travel expenses and prays for the rejection of the transfer petition. 3 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 matrimonial disputes, and also considering the distance of travel to and fro 4 between the two Family Courts, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner. 8. Consequently, in view of the settled law and the submissions made by the applicant, the transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Case No.317/2026 (Paras Ramtekey Vs. Laxmi Rao) pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg be transferred to the Family Court, Bilaspur. 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