1 CGHC010125952026 2026:CGHC:34343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 55 of 2026 Radhika Gupta @ Renu Mittal W/o Rahul Gupta Aged About 42 Years D/o Shri Ra- jendra Mittal, R/o- B.W.- 8, Vasundhara Kundla City, Behind Agrasen Bhawan, Am- bikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) --- Applicant versus Rahul Gupta S/o Pawan Kumar Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o M-20, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant For applicant : Mr. D. K. Gwalre, Adv. Non-applicant Rahul Gupta appears in person (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 5-8-2026 1 Applicant/wife has preferred this TPC under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') for transfer of Case No. HMA/1120/2025 pending before the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) to Family Court, Ambikapur (CG). AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.08.06 17:41:36 +0530 2 2 Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that marriage of applicant/wife and non-applicant/husband was solemnized on 24-11-2007. They have been blessed with 3 children. After some times of marriage, the non-applicant/husband and his parents started harassing and subjecting the applicant with mental as well as physical cruelty, which she initially ignored keeping a positive hope of normal life, but since December, 2021, the applicant is residing with her parents at Ambikapur. Learned counsel further submits that applicant is a lady aged about 42 years. The non-applicant has filed an application under section 13(1)(i-a), 13(!)(ib), 21(B)(1), 21(B)(2), 21(C) and Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act at Raipur. The applicant, along with her minor son aged about 8 years, studying in Ambikapur, is residing with her old aged parents. The distance between Ambikapur to Raipur is about 340 km, there is none to accompany her to Raipur. She has undergone surgery of uterus in the year 2020, therefore, it would be difficult for her to travel such a long distance alone to attend Court proceeding at Raipur. It is further submitted that one criminal case No. 2100/2023 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is pending consideration before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, in which, non-applicant/husband has already entered his appearance. Hence learned counsel prays that, divorce case filed by the non- applicant be transferred as prayed for. 3 3 The non-applicant appearing in person has not filed reply, rather filed preliminary objection in form of detailed reply. Referring to his preliminary objection/reply, the non-applicant submits that they were blessed with 3 children. Younger son is residing with applicant, but two minor children aged about 14 and 17 years are residing with him at Raipur and studying there. He further submits that, though the applicant has undergone uterus surgery in the year 2023, but in medical prescription filed by her, the doctor has only suggested her to avoid travel. It does not mean that she cannot travel from Ambikapur to Raipur. Further she may also appear in divorce petition through video conferencing. Hence, the instant TPC may be rejected. 4 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the transfer petition and the relevant provisions. 5 The applicant is residing along with her younger son aged about 8 years, with her parents at Ambikapur. It is stated that, distance between Ambikapur to Raipur is about 680 km to and fro, therefore, being a lady, it would be difficult for the applicant to travel such a long distance to attend court proceedings at Raipur. Further, one criminal case No. 2100/2023 for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act filed by the applicant is pending consideration before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur in which the non-applicant has entered appearance, 4 therefore, he has to go to Ambikapur to attend court proceeding. In that view of the matter, if divorce petition is transferred from Raipur to Ambikapur, then it would be convenient for non- applicant also as he may attend hearing in both the cases. 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another reported in 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 matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishore 5 Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. 8 Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's convenience must be looked into, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for transfer of the divorce petition, as prayed for. 9 Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Case No. HMA / 1120/2025 (Rahul Gupta Vs. Radhika Gupta alias Renu Mittal) pending before the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (CG) be transferred to Family Court, Ambikapur (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 10 The 1st Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid case to the Family Court, Ambikapur (C.G.) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. It is further observed that after receiving the case on transfer, the transferee Court shall consider and decide the case as early as possible, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferor Court. It is further directed that, if personal appearance of the 6 non-applicant/husband is not required, he may be permitted to appear through video conferencing. 11 In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak