1 2026:CGHC:19591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 140 of 2025 Priti Singh Rajput D/o Shrikant Singh Rajput Aged About 30 Years W/o Akash Singh Rajput, (Wrongly Mentioned As 32 Years), Presently Residing At Chiranjividas Nagar, Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Akash Singh Rajput @ Kanishk S/o Shri Keshav Singh Rajput Aged About 29 Years Caste Rajput, R/o Village Rampur, Ward No. 02, Tehsil- Kartala District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Pragati Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Syed Afaque Hussain Rizvi, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/04/2026 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. A/14/2025, filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the learned District & Additional Sessions SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.04.28 16:24:10 +0530 2 Court, Gharghoda, District Raigarh to the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 11.05.2018 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. She submits that from the very inception of the marriage, the petitioner was subjected to persistent cruelty, dowry harassment, and physical assault by the respondent, and on account of such unlawful demands, she was driven out of her matrimonial home, whereafter she has been residing at Raigarh. She further submits that, with the sole intention to harass the petitioner, the respondent has instituted a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned District & Additional Sessions Court, Gharghoda, District Raigarh. The petitioner, being a working woman employed at a private hospital in Raigarh and presently residing there, faces considerable difficulty in attending the proceedings at the said Court, which is situated at a considerable distance from her place of residence. Such travel causes severe hardship to the petitioner. Accordingly, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that though the respondent is a resident of Village Rampur, District Korba, the petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed before the learned Additional District Judge, Gharghoda, on the ground that the petitioner was earlier working at Gharghoda. 3 4. To counter the said submission of the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said contention is incorrect and asserts that the petitioner has never worked at Gharghoda. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. 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. 4 10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different 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 conflict of decisions.” 7. In view of the aforesaid principles and having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly considering that the petitioner is residing at Raigarh, while the respondent, though a resident of District Korba, has filed the petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Gharghoda, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed and it is ordered that the Civil Suit No. A/14/2025 which is pending before the learned District & Additional Sessions Court, Gharghoda, District Raigarh be transferred to the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 9. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the learned Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) on 16.06.2026. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar