Smt. Gulnaaz Anjum Vs Mohammad Asif Ahmed

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:7805

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 199 of 2024

¶6

Smt. Gulnaaz Anjum W/o Mohammad Asif Ahmed, D/o Shahid Khan, Aged About 26 Years R/o Santoshi Nagar, Shiv Nagar, Near Anganbadi, Police Station-Tikarapara Raipur, Tehsil And District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

versus

¶8

Mohammad Asif Ahmed S/o Late Iqbal Ahmed, Aged About 29 Years R/o In Front Of Dr. Ghosh House, Ganesh Chowk, Saket Nagar Korba, Tahsil And District-Korba (C.G.)

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Mohammad Asif Ahmed, Adv.-in-person.

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

¶12

Order On Board 13-02-2025

¶13

Heard.

¶14

1. Petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No. 163-A/2024 (Mohammad Asif Ahmed vs. Gulnaaz Anjum) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) to Family Court, Raipur (C.G.).

¶15

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on

¶16

2

¶17

12^th March, 2023 as per Muslim Rites & Rituals at Raipur, but after some time of the marriage because of demand of dowry and harassment meted out to the petitioner/wife by respondent/husband and his family members, she has been compelled to leave apart from respondent/husband, therefore, she is residing alongwith her parents at Raipur since 6.2.2024. He further submits that the petitioner/wife has filed application for grant of maintenance under Section 144 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth, ‘BNSS’) before the Principal Judge, family Court, Raipur, she has also filed application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the respondent / husband and his family members, Criminal Case bearing No. 13812 / 24 under Section 498-A of the IPC is also pending consideration against the respondent/husband in the Court of Raipur, but respondent / husband has filed application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba bearing Civil Suit No. 163-A/2024. It is further contended that since three cases are already pending against the respondent/husband in the Court of Raipur and distance between Raipur to Korba is 230 kms., therefore, it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel from Raipur to Korba, therefore, he prays that Civil Suit No. 163-A/2024 (Mohammad Asif Ahmed vs. Smt. Gulnaaz Anjum) filed by respondent/husband in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba be transferred to Family Court, Raipur.

¶18

3. Respondent/husband, who is present in person, submits that he has no objection if the Civil Suit No. 163-A/2024 is transferred from Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba to Family Court, Raipur.

¶19

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent appearing in person and perused the material available on record.

¶20

3

¶21

5. Having considered the fact that three cases are already pending against the respondent/husband in the Court of Raipur, as such, respondent/husband has to go to Raipur to attend hearing of the aforesaid cases. In such a situation, it would be convenient for petitioner/wife as well as respondent/husband, if the Civil Suit No. 163-A / 2024 filed by respondent/husband for Restitution of Conjugal Rights is transferred from Family Court, Korba to Family Court, Raipur (C.G.).

¶22

6. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held as under:-

¶23

"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 .”

¶24

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh -v- Kumar Sanjay and another [(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 -v- Kishore

¶25

4

¶26

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

¶27

8. Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of his order and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforecited cases; it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for.

¶28

9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No. 163-A / 2024 (Mohammad Asif Ahmed Vs. Smt. Gulnaaz Anjum) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Family Court, Raipur within a period of 15 days.

¶29

10. It is further directed that the Family Court, Raipur is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court.

¶30

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

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶33

Amit/-

¶34

AMIT Digitally signed byAMIT KUMAR KUMAR DUBEYDate: 2025.03.05 DUBEY 17:40:47 +0530

¶35

5

Smt. Gulnaaz Anjum v. Mohammad Asif Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gulnaaz Anjum v. Mohammad Asif Ahmed

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

Roshni Das Vs Swapnil Das

Madan Vs Shobharam (Dead) Through Lrs