1 CGHC010266862026 2026:CGHC:35923 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 113 of 2026 Smt. Kaushilya Sharma W/o Shri Ashish Vishwakarma Aged About 30 Years R/o Through Father Namely Madan Lal Sharma, Ward No. 8, Main Road, Naka No. 1, Police Station Bagbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Ashish Vishwakarma S/o Shri Vijay Vishwakarma Aged About 35 Years R/o Karn Nagar, Chagorabhata, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Patel, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Subhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Amitesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 13/08/2026 Heard. 1. Petitioner/ wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Case bearing HMA/173/2026 (Ashish Vishwakarma Vs. Smt. Kaushilya Sharma) pending before third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to the Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund (C.G.). 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 10.02.2017 at Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) as per Hindu rites & rituals. They have been blessed with a male child on 17.09.2021. After some time of marriage, due to demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the petitioner/wife by respondent/husband and his family members, she has been compelled to live apart from respondent/husband, therefore, she is residing alongwith her parents at Mahasamund with her child since long. He further submits that the petitioner/ wife has filed an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of maintenance before the Family Court, Mahasamund bearing Misc. Criminal Case No. 89/2024 against the respondent/husband, in which, respondent/husband has already entered his appearance. It is next contended that respondent/husband has filed application under Section 13 (A)(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing HMA/173/2026 for seeking decree of divorce before Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur only to harass the petitioner/wife. It is submitted that distance between Mahasamund to Raipr is about 120 kms. to and fro and, therefore, it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to go to Raipur to attend hearing of aforesaid case filed by the respondent / husband, rather since one maintenance case is already pending against the respondent/ husband in Family Court, Mahasamund, therefore, it would not be difficult for him to come to attend the case at Mahasamund, if case bearing HMA/173/2026 is transferred from Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to the court of Judge, Family Court, Mahasaund. 3. Counsel for the respondent/husband while opposing the transfer petitioner would submit that though distance between aforesaid two places is 3 only 120 kms. to and fro, but there is frequent bus connectivity between these two places, therefore, she may travel betweeen aforesaid two places, hence, the transfer petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The ground taken for transfer of HMA/173/2026 (Ashish Vishwakarma Vs. Smt. Kaushilya Sharma) is that maintenance case filed by the petitioner / wife in respect of both the parties is pending consideration before Family Court, Mahasamund, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if HMA/173/2026 filed by respondent / husband before Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur be transferred to Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.), rather it would not cause any difficulty for the husband, as he has to go in the hearing of maintenance case filed by the petitioner/wife in the Family Court, Mahasamund. 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 4 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 -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 matter 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. 8. Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of this order and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforecited cases; it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Case HMA/173/2026 (Ashish Vishwakarma Vs. Smt. Kaushilya Sharma) pending before Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur be transferred to Family Court, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Mahasamund within a period of 15 days. 10. Further, the transferee Family Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible preferably within period of four months from the date of receipt of the original record. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the Family Court for the expeditious disposal of the case. 5 11. However, the respondent / husband is at liberty to attend the proceedings before the Judge, Family Court, Mahasamund through Video Conferencing on dates when his personal appearance is not explicitly required by the said Court. 12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.08.20 12:47:27 +0530