2026:CGHC:10868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 43 of 2025 Smt. Ranjeeta Thakur W/o Rajendra Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Through Shir Ramanand Mishra House No. 115 Bhathipara Tahsil And District - Bastar (C.G) ... Petitioner(s) versus Rajendra Thakur S/o Shri Bhupendra Thakur Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 04 New Bus Stand Dalli Rajhara Tahsil Daundi District - Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 02/03/2026 1. The instant petition has been 4led under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.03.03 15:03:40 +0530 of Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 4led by the respondent/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod District Balod (C.G.), to the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.). 2. The petitioner and respondent are legally wedded Hindus, married on 24.02.2023 as per customary rites. After marriage, the petitioner resided at her matrimonial home with the respondent and his family. 3. Subsequently, the respondent and his family allegedly began quarrelling with the petitioner and restricted her communication with her parents. Upon objection, she was taken to Bilaspur, where the alleged harassment continued. Thereafter, the petitioner was left at her parental home, where she has been residing since. 4. Despite repeated attempts to return to her matrimonial home, the respondent allegedly refused to take her back and threatened divorce. The petitioner is a homemaker with no independent income and is dependent on her parents. She later received notice from the Family Court, Balod, regarding a petition 4led by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Civil Suit No. 120A/2024) on grounds of desertion, adultery, and cruelty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently residing with her parents at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), and is facing considerable di=culty in appearing before the Family Court at Balod on each and every date of hearing in view of the distance of more than 230–240 kilometers and her lack of independent income. It is further submitted that she apprehends threat to her safety if compelled to attend the proceedings at Balod. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for transfer and submits that the petitioner herself is trying to harass the respondent by 4ling the present transfer petition. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are false and baseless and that she has deliberately withdrawn from the society of the respondent without any su=cient cause. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner is facing any inconvenience, she may be permitted to appear before the Family Court, Balod through video conferencing, and therefore no case for transfer is made out. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that generally it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "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. 10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in diDerent Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conEict of decisions.” 9. Having regard to the submissions made and in view of the aforesaid principles and also considering the fact that the petitioner is residing with her parents at Jagdalpur, has no independent source of income, and the distance between Jagdalpur and Balod is substantial, this Court is of the opinion that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed. Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod District Balod (C.G.) is hereby transferred to the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) for its trial and disposal in accordance with law. 11.Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur on 08.04.2026. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Shoaib