1 CGHC010282042026 2026:CGHC:38993 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 122 of 2026 Meetu Pal W/o Mahesh Kumar Periwal Aged About 35 Years R/o Village P.V. 30, Yogendra Nagar, Police Station And Tahsil Pakhanjur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Mahesh Kumar Periwal S/o Shri Sushil Kumar Periwal Aged About 42 Years R/o C.G. Heights, Block-B, 6th Floor, Flat No. B-604, Daldal Seoni, Police Station Pandri, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi} Order on Board 03/09/2026 Heard. 1. Petitioner/ wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of HMA Case No. 403 /2026 (Mahesh Kumar Periwal vs. Meetu Pal) pending before the court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) to the Family Court, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.). 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that this is the second marriage of both the parties. The petitioner/wife has two minor children, aged about 14 years and 6 years, respectively, born out from her first marriage. Both the children are presently residing with the petitioner/wife at Pankhanjur, District North Bastar, Kanker. After some time of marriage, the relationship between the husband and wife turned sour. Consequently, the petitioner/wife was constrained to leave the matrimonial home and return to her parental home, where she is residing along with her both the children since long. Thereafter, the respondent/ husband has filed an application under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage being HMA Case No. 403 / 2026 before the court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur. He further submits that distance between petitioner’s residence at Pakhanpur, District North Bastar Kanker and Raipur is 300 kms. to and fro, therefore, it would be difficult for her to go to Raipur to attend hearing of aforesaid case filed by the respondent / husband, therefore, he prays that aforesaid HMA Case No. 403 / 2026 filed by the respondent/ husband be transferred to the Family Court, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.). 3. Counsel for the respondent/husband that though distance between aforesaid two places is 300 kms. to and fro, but there is direct bus connectivity between North Bastar, Kanker to Raipur, hence, it would not be difficult for her to attend the hearing of divorce case filed by respondent/husband against her at Family Court, Raipur, 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 urged for seeking transfer of HMA Case No. 403/2026 is that the distance between Raipur to petitioner’s residence at Pakhankur, District North Bastar, Kanker is approximately 300 kilometres to & fro and, therefore, it would be difficult for the petitioner/ wife to attend the hearing of divorce case filed by the respondent/husband before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. Further, according to learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, she (petitioner) is solely responsible for the care, custody and upbringing of her two minor children and it is extremely difficult for her to leave the children unattended and travel to attend the hearing of divorce case filed by the respondent / husband. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and appropriate to transfer HMA Case No. 403/2026, instituted by the respondent/husband before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, to the Family Court, District North Bastar Kanker, for its hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 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 4 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 HMA Case No. 403 /2026 (Mahesh Kumar Periwal vs. Meetu Pal) pending before the court of First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, District North Bastar Kanker 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 six 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 Family Court, District North Bastar Kanker 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: 2026.09.07 11:47:30 +0530