Roshni Das Vs Swapnil Das

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.02.17 10:22:33 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:7837

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 186 of 2024

¶6

1 - Roshni Das W/o Swapnil Das Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Bhatapara, Police Station And Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. --- Adress Mentioned In The Notice Roshni Das, Aged About 32 Years, D/o Ashok Pant, R/o House No. 8/546, Parshuram Ward, Motiwadi, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgrh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Swapnil Das S/o Ramesh Das, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Devpuri, Harshvilla House No. 07, Harsh Tower Ke Pass Devpuri Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. shreshtha Gupta, Adv.

¶12

(Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

13/02/2025

¶15

1. Applicant/wife has preferred this TPC under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') for transfer of Case No. 944/2024 (Swapnil Das Vs. Roshni das) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur Distt. Raipur (CG) to Family Court, Balodabajar, District BalodabajarBhatapara (CG).

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that marriage of applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 6-5-2019 at Bhatapara and they have been blessed with one male child. After 4 years of

¶17

2

¶18

marriage, the applicant left the house of respondent/husband due to noncordial relationship between them, as the respondent/ husband is a heavy drunkard. He also used to harass the applicant and abused her with filthy language, as a result, she has left her matrimonial house and is residing at present with her parents at Balodabajar along with her infant child. The applicant has moved an application under Section 13(1)(A) of Hindu Marriage Act before the learned Family Court, Balodabajar bearing Civil Suit No. A/149/2024. She has already filed one maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. bearing MJC No. 347/2024 and divorce case is also pending before the Family Court, Balodabajar, but the respondent has moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, which has been registered as Case No. 944/2024. The distance between Balodabajar to Raipur is 85 km, but since she is having one infant child aged 3 years, therefore, it would be difficult for her to go to Raipur to attend hearing of the case for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent at Raipur. Hence, it is prayed that Case No. 944/2024 filed by the respondent be transferred from Raipur to Balodabajar.

¶19

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the respondent is suffering from liver problem and he has also suffered fracture on his leg. After death of mother of respondent, the applicant used insist the respondent to get separated his property from his father, which was not accepted by respondent, therefore, applicant herself has left his company, as such, the instant TPC is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the transfer petition and the relevant provisions.

¶21

3

¶22

5. It is not in disputed that applicant / wife has filed one maintenance case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and one divorce petition under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act against the respondent, which are pending consideration before the Family Court, Balodabajar, as such, it was incumbent upon the respondent to go to Balodabar to attend hearing. The applicant is also having a child aged about 3 years, hence on this count also, it would be difficult for her to go to Raipur from Balodabajar to attend hearing in civil suit filed by respondent. In such facts situation, it would be convenient for both the parties to transfer the Civil Suit filed by the respondent to Family Court, Baloda Bajar.

¶23

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at paras 9 which reads as

¶24

under:-

¶25

" 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 socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

¶26

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Versus

¶27

Kumar Sanjay and another reported in 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 Versus

¶28

4

¶29

Kishore Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

¶30

8. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's convenience must be looked into, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for.

¶31

9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Case No. 944/2024 (Swapnil Das Vs. Roshni Das) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court, Balodabajar, District Balodabajar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law.

¶32

10. The Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur (C.G.) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid case to the Family Court, Balodabajar, Distt. Balodabajar-Bhatapara (C.G.), within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. It is further observed that after receiving the case on transfer, the transferred Court is directed to consider and decide the case as early as possible, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferring Court.

¶33

11. In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶36

Pathak

Roshni Das v. Swapnil Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshni Das v. Swapnil Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minor Lokeshwari Vs General in Public (If Any Objection)

South Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax

Dushyant Jangde Vs Pradeep Kumar Bahskar (Dead) Through its Legal Representative

Rajkumar Vs Mohd. Imran

Smt. Gulnaaz Anjum Vs Mohammad Asif Ahmed

Madan Vs Shobharam (Dead) Through Lrs