1 CGHC010265332026 2026:CGHC:35462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 112 of 2026 Megha Sahu W/o Suraj Kumar Sao Aged About 30 Years R/o Chandranagar, Shanti Nagar, Supela, Bhilai Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Suraj Kumar Sao S/o Late Ramkrishna Sao Aged About 32 Years R/o Beside House No. 425, Jhopdi Para Mohalla, Pump House, Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Hardik Jaiswal, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 12/08/2026 Heard. 1. Petitioner/ wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No. 61-A/2026 (Suraj Kumar Sao Vs. Smt. Megha Sahu) pending before Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba to Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 22.04.2023 at Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar as per Hindu rites and customs. After some time of marriage, due to demand of dowry to the tune of 2 Rs. 5 lakhs & other gold & silver articles 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 Durg 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, Durg bearing Cri. M.J.C. No. 408/2026 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 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Civil Suit No. 61-A/2026 for restitution of conjugal rights before Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba only to harass the petitioner/wife. It is submitted that distance between Durg to Korba is about 460 kms. to and fro and, therefore, it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to go to Korba 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, Durg, therefore, it would not be difficult for him to come to attend the case at Durg, if Civil Suit bearing No. 61-A/2026 is transferred from Judge, Family Court, Korba (C.G.) to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg. 3. Counsel for the respondent/husband while opposing the transfer petitioner would submit that though distance between aforesaid two places is 460 kms. to and fro, but there is train connectivity between these two places and the respondent is also willing to bear the petitioner’s travel expenses, 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. 3 5. The ground taken for the transfer of Civil Suit No. 61-A/2026 (Suraj Kumar Sao Vs. Smt. Megha Sahu) is that maintenance case filed by the petitioner / wife in respect of both the parties is pending consideration before Family Court, Durg, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if Civil Suit No. 61-A/2026 filed by respondent / husband before the Family Court, Korba, District Korba be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg 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, Durg. 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 -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 4 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 Civil Suit No. 61-A/2026 (Suraj Kumar Sao Vs. Smt. Megha Sahu) pending before Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Durg, 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. 11. However, the respondent / husband is at liberty to attend the proceedings before the Family Court, Durg 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: 2026.08.13 16:41:57 +0530 5