Smt. Pallavi Chourasiya Vs Sanjay Kumar

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8216

¶3

Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.02.18 16:07:50 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

TPC No. 193 of 2024

¶7

1 - Smt. Pallavi Chourasiya W/o Sanjay Kumar Tamboli Daughter Of Purushottam, Resident Of Village And Post Lambar (Saraipali), Police Station Saraipali, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Shriram Prasad Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Ramjanki Mandir, Rajapara, Malkharouda, Tahsil Malkharouda, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh), District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For applicant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Adv. For Respondent : None appears.

¶13

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

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

17-2-2025

¶16

1 Applicant/wife has preferred this TPC under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') for transfer of Case No. 49A/2024 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. Smt. Pallavi Chourasiya) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Sakti, District Sakti (CG) to Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG).

¶17

2 Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that marriage of applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 7-12-2022. After about one month of marriage, respondent/husband started illtreating the applicant, he also used to reside in separate room and ultimately, she

¶18

2

¶19

was compelled to live apart from her husband/respondent. Therefore, the applicant is residing along with her parents at Saraipali, Tehsil Basna, Distt. Mahasamund. Since respondent was not paying any amount for her maintenance, therefore, she filed application for maintenance bearing Misc. Criminal Case No. 76/2024 under Section 144 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The respondent filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending as Case No. 49-A/2024 before the Family Court, Camp Sakti, Distt. Sakti. Learned counsel further submits that distance between Saraipali to Sakti is about 150 km. And there is no direct connectivity between these two places. Therefore, it would be difficult for her to travel from Saraipali to Sakti to attend court proceedings, hence, the civil suit in question be transferred from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Sakti, District Sakti (CG) to Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG). Rather since one case is already pending before the Family Court, Camp Court, Saraipali bearing Misc. Cr. Case No. 76/2024, therefore, it would be convienent for both the parties, if the suit in question is transferred to Saraipali, as prayed for.

¶20

3 Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent, though Vakalatnama has been filed on his behalf.

¶21

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

¶22

5 It is stated that, distance between Saraipali to Sakti is about 150 Km. and there is no direct connectivity between these two places,

¶23

3

¶24

therefore, it would be difficult for the applicant to travel 300 km. (up and down) from Saraipali to Sakti and further, one maintenance case is also pending at Saraipali bearing Misc. Cri. Case No. 76/2024 between the parties.

¶25

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 under:-

¶26

" 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.”

¶27

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

¶28

8 Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of

¶29

4

¶30

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. 49A/2024 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. Smt. Pallavi Chourasiya) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Sakti, District Sakti (CG) be transferred to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG). for its trial/disposal in accordance with law.

¶32

10 The Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Sakti, District Sakti (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid case to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (CG), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/ submission of copy of this order. It is further observed that after receiving the case on transfer, the transferee 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

Smt. Pallavi Chourasiya v. Sanjay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pallavi Chourasiya v. Sanjay Kumar

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

Anupma Bada Vs Mikki Lakra

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vs Sandip Kumar Singh

Vishwajeet Vs Firatu

Smt. Meera Gupta Vs Chakradhar Gupta