The petition filed under Section 24 CPC seeking transfer of a restitution of conjugal rights suit from Balod to Durg based on residence and mental harassment pleas was dismissed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.
Transfer of Civil Suit No. 68-A/2022 from Family Court, Balod to Family Court, Durg was declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Transfer Petition (C) No. 105 of 2022
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Smt. Aditi Singhvi Agrawal,Advocate For Respondent : Shri S.B. Pandey, Advocate
Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board
01.05.2023
1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner- wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 68-A/2022 “ Satyaprakash Dewangan Vs. Smt. Divya Bharti ” pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod to Family Court, Durg(CG).
2. According to the Petitioner, her marriage was solemnized with the Respondent on 11.12.2020 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals at Durg, but after some time of the marriage, a dispute arose between the parties and therefore, the Petitioner and Respondent both are started living separately since 14.05.2022. It is contended further that on 09.06.022, an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the Petitioner before the Family Court
2
at Durg seeking amount of maintenance, which has been registered as Criminal Misc. Judicial Case No. 753/2022 and, after filing of her said petition, the husband has initiated the proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1955’) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod seeking restitution of conjugal rights where the case has been registered as Civil Suit No. 68A/2022. Further contention of the Petitioner is that since the Petitioner is residing at Durg along with her old parents and as she is suffering from mental pain and harassment, which occurred due to the acts of her husband, therefore, it is difficult for her to travel to Balod for attending the said proceedings initiated by her husband before the said Court, i.e. Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod as no one is there in the family to take care of her. With this plea, the Petitioner is praying for the transfer of Civil Suit No.68-A/2022 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod to Family Court, Durg.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, while opposing the said application submits that the Petitioner has already moved an application before the concerned Court under Section 24 of the Act of 1955 seeking maintenance pendente lite of the said proceedings as well as the litigation expenses and the matter has been listed for consideration of her said application. It is contested further on the ground that the Petitioner was earlier a Teacher in Government Polytechnic College at Berla of District Bemetara and used to travel to Balod when she was living along with her in-laws and since the distance between these two places is 192 kms, therefore, it cannot be said that it would be difficult for her to travel from Durg to Balod, which is of just 65 kms. It is pleaded further that the Respondent is working as a Lab Attendant in
3
village Kannewada of District Balod and if the matter is transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court Balod to Family Court, Durg, then in the said condition, he will have to obtain leave in order to attend each and every date of hearing and in such an eventuality, it would not only for the Respondent, but the students of the said institution would have to suffer an irreparable loss. It is, therefore, contended that the transfer petition as made by the Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
4. Having considered the aforesaid contention of the parties, considering further that the Petitioner-wife, who was earlier a Teacher and used to travel from Berla to Balod, which is of 192 kms, therefore, in absence of any legal ground for transferring of the said matter from Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod to Family Court, Durg, I am not inclined to allow this petition.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE
sunita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for transfer of a civil suit seeking restitution of conjugal rights from Family Court, Balod to Family Court, Durg ought to be allowed.
Smt. Divya Bharti D/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Dewangan
Satyaprakash Dewangan
Sanjay S. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
