1 CGHC010208002026 2026:CGHC:34176 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 87 of 2026 Monika Dwivedi W/o Sadashiv Dwivedi Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Baloda, Tahsil Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. Versus Sadashiv Dwivedi S/o Late Shri H.R. Dwivedi Aged About 56 Years R/o House No. 35, New Pensionbada, Raipur City Tahsil And Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. Heard on IA No.2/2026 - Application for correction in the prayer clause of the instant petition. 2. Instead of 'Saraipali', the petitioner has typed 'Mahasamund' in the prayer clause. 3. On due consideration, above application is allowed. 4. Counsel for the petitioner is granted permission to amend the prayer clause, and the necessary correction has been carried out under his signature before this Court itself. 5. Heard on application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.06 10:35:56 +0530 2 6. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth the 'CPC') seeking the transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband, bearing case HMA No.11/2026 (Sadashiv Dwivedi Vs. Geetanjali Verma) from the Family Court Raipur, District Raipur to the Family Court Saraipali, District Mahasamund. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 06.05.2017 and out of said wedlock they blessed with daughter, now aged about 7 years. However, after some time of marriage, the respondent started harassing the petitioner mentally and subjected her to cruelty, due to which the petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she started residing at her parental house with her daughter at Saraipali. He further submits that multiple proceedings are pending before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Saraipali viz. Criminal Appeal No.10/2025 and Criminal Appeal No.11/2025 under the Domestic Violence Act. 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 distance of approximately 320 kilometers to and fro. 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, it is prayed that the transfer petition may be allowed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is direct bus and train connectivity between the said two places, and the distance is not too far. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 3 10. 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. 11. 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.” 12. 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 the fact that two other cases between the parties are already pending before the Court at Saraipali, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to transfer the proceedings to the Family 4 Court Saraipali. This will mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner/wife and enable both parties to attend hearings in one location. 13. Consequently, in view of the settled law and the submissions made by the applicant, the transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that case HMA No.11/2026 (Sadashiv Dwivedi Vs. Geetanjali Verma) currently pending before the Family Court Raipur, District Raipur be transferred to the Family Court Saraipali, District Mahasamund, for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay