1 CGHC010222432026 2026:CGHC:32981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPCR No. 11 of 2026 Smt. Komal Singh W/o Rohit Singh Aged About 33 Years Currently Residing At Dharampura Ashoka Lifestyel, H. No. 02, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus Rohit Singh S/o Narendra Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o - 15c/12m/1 Harwara, Dumanganj District Allahabad, (Now Prayagraj) Uttar Pradesh Currently Posted As Assistant Commandant 195 Bataliyan Border Security Force Baikunthpur Siliguri West Bengal. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking transfer of Case bearing number MCC/1038/2023 (Rohit AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Singh v. Komal Singh), presently pending before the Court of the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, to the Court of the learned Family Court at District Bastar (C.G). 2. Brief facts necessary for the case are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent, and their marriage was solemnized on 28.11.2012 at Raipur. Out of the wedlock, they have a child aged about 13 years. The respondent has filed an application under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. before the Court of the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, seeking recall/cancellation of the ex parte proceedings/order passed in the maintenance case. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been regularly appearing before the Family Court on every date of hearing since 12.02.2024, whereas the respondent has remained absent on several occasions, resulting in unnecessary adjournments. Despite her diligent appearance, the proceedings have not progressed due to the respondent's non-appearance. The petitioner is presently residing at Jagdalpur and has to travel approximately 300 kilometres to attend the proceedings at Raipur. Owing to the absence of a convenient train service, she is compelled to travel by bus, causing considerable hardship, inconvenience and financial burden. Since the proceedings under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. are still pending before the Family Court, Raipur, the petitioner has filed the present transfer petition seeking transfer of the said case to the competent Family Court at Jagdalpur. Hence, the petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has no independent source of income and is financially dependent upon her aged parents, whereas the respondent is gainfully employed and financially well-settled. She is also solely responsible for looking after her 13-year-old minor child and has no other family member to assist or accompany her in the proceedings. She further submits that the petitioner resides at Jagdalpur, while the proceedings are pending before the Family Court at Raipur, which is approximately 300 kilometres away. Due to the advanced age of her parents, they are unable to accompany her, and frequent travel to Raipur causes considerable hardship, inconvenience and financial burden. It is also alleged that the petitioner has a reasonable apprehension regarding her safety and well-being at Raipur on account of the respondent and his associates. She also submits that this Court had earlier transferred a matrimonial proceeding between the parties in Transfer Petition No. 41/2024. Reliance has also been placed upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishore Babulal Pardeshi, wherein it has been held that, in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife deserves paramount consideration. Therefore, it is prayed that the pending proceedings before the Family Court, Raipur, be transferred in the interest of justice. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the petitioner. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is presently residing at Jagdalpur along with her minor child aged about 13 years. It has also not been disputed that she has to travel approximately 300 kilometres from Jagdalpur to Raipur on every date of hearing. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that she has no independent source of income and is dependent upon her aged parents. Frequent travel to Raipur with the responsibility of looking after the minor child undoubtedly causes considerable hardship, inconvenience and financial burden. Another significant circumstance which cannot be lost sight of is that an earlier matrimonial proceeding between the same parties bearing Civil Suit No.681 of 2017, has already been transferred by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 in TPC No.41 of 2024 to the Family Court at Jagdalpur and the same is presently pending there. Thus, one matrimonial dispute between the parties is already being adjudicated at Jagdalpur. In such circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice and judicial propriety that the present proceedings are also tried by the same station so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings at different places, unnecessary inconvenience to the parties and the possibility of conflicting findings on interconnected issues. 7. So far as the inconvenience likely to be caused to the respondent is concerned, this Court finds that the respondent is presently 5 serving as Assistant Commandant, 195 Battalion, Border Security Force, Baikunthpur, Siliguri, West Bengal. Therefore, the respondent is not residing either at Raipur or at Jagdalpur. Being posted outside the State of Chhattisgarh, he would, in any event, be required to undertake travel for attending the proceedings irrespective of whether the case remains pending at Raipur or is transferred to Jagdalpur. Consequently, no greater prejudice or additional hardship would be caused to the respondent if the proceedings are transferred to Jagdalpur. Therefore, for balancing the comparative inconvenience of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the inconvenience to the petitioner is far greater than that likely to be caused to the respondent. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly in view of the earlier transfer order passed by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court between the same parties, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present petition. Accordingly, the present transfer petition stands allowed. The First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) is directed to transmit the entire record of Case bearing number MCC/1038/2023 (Rohit Singh v. Komal Singh), to the Court of the learned Family Court at District Bastar (C.G), within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 6 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil