Allowed

Smt. Purnima Patel v. Kumar Kshitij Patel

Chhattisgarh HC21 Oct 2022TPC/108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a Transfer Petition under Section 24 CPC allowed the transfer of a divorce suit filed by the husband from Balodabazar to Bilaspur. The court accepted the petitioner's argument regarding distance and lack of public transport hindering her attendance.

What did the court decide?

Civil Suit No. HMA 106A/2022 transferred from Family Court, Balodabazar to Family Court, Bilaspur for hearing and disposal.

Smt. Purnima Patel Vs Kumar Kshitij Patel — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Transfer Petition (C) No. 108 of 2022

¶4

Smt. Purnima Patel W/o Shri Kumar Kshitij Patel D/o
Shri Santosh Kumar Patel, Aged about 31 years, R/o
Village and Post Dindori, Thana and Tahsil Lormi,
Distt. Mungeli (C.G.) (Ads wrongly mention in page
no. 9).

¶5

---Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

Kumar Kshitij Patel S/o Shri Somnath Patel, Aged
about 30 years, R/o Civil Lines Parsabhader Road
Balodabazar, Thana and Tahsil Balodabazar, Distt.
Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

 ---Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner:-Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent :-Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

¶11

21/10/2022

¶12

1. By way of this petition under Section 24 of CPC, the petitioner/wife has sought transfer of Civil Suit No. HMA 106-A/2022 ( Kshitij Patel v. Smt. Purnima Patel) filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the Family Court Balodabazar to Family Court, Bilaspur.

¶13

¶14

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent/husband has filed application under
Section 13(1)(1-a) before the Family Court

¶15

Balodabazar, whereas the petitioner/wife is
residing at Dindouri which is situated at Tahsil
Lormi and the distance between Lormi and
Balodabazar is about 120 kms and no proper public
transport is available, as such, the said case be
transferred from Family Court, Balodabazar to
Family Court, Bilaspur which is seriously opposed
by learned counsel for the respondent stating that
the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶16

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶17

4. Taking consideration of the fact that petitioner, who is a working as a Lecturer Panchayat is posted at Dindouri, Tahsil Lormi and the distance between Lormi to Balodabazar is about 120 kms and there is no proper public transport due to which she faces difficulty in attending court proceedings, I deem it appropriate to transfer Civil Suit No. HMA 106A/2022 (Kshitij Patel v. Smt. Purnima Patel) filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(1)(1-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending in the Family

¶18

Court, Balodabazar to the Family Court, Bilaspur
for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
Parties are directed to appear before the Family
Court, Bilaspur on 28/11/2022. Meanwhile, the
Family Court, Balodabazar will send the record of
the said case to the Family Court, Bilaspur
expeditiously.

¶19

5.The instant petition is allowed accordingly.

¶20

Sd/-Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay K. Agrawal)
 JudgeJudge

¶21

Harneet

Smt. Purnima Patel v. Kumar Kshitij Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Purnima Patel v. Kumar Kshitij Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Priyanka Mandle Vs Dhaniram Mandle

Kirtika Sahu Vs Shri Trilok Sahu

Dinesh Prasad Tripathi Vs Chief General Manager

Smt. Uma Khuntiya @ Uma Yadav Vs Sudhir Khuntiya

Ramsewak Goutam Vs G.P. Bhardwaj

Raj Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh