Anupma Bada Vs Mikki Lakra

1. Petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transfer of Divorce Case bearing Civil Suit A HMA 39/2024 pending before Additional District Judge, Dongargarh to the Family Court, Raipur.

¶17

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 08.02.2021 at Raipur as per Christian rites and rituals. It is submitted that petitioner is working on the post of Teacher and presently he is posted at

¶18

2

¶19

Bhopalpatnam, District – Bijapur, but since mutual understanding could not be established between them, therefore, petitioner/wife has left the company of respondent/husband. He further submits that the respondent/husband filed divorce petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Dongarhgarh, District Rajnandgaon and the distance between Beejapur to Dongargarh is about 380 kms. and, therefore, aforesaid Divorce Case bearing Civil Suit A HMA 39/2024 pending before Additional District Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon may be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur, which is somehow more convenient place for petitioner/wife to attend hearing of the proceedings of the aforesaid case at Raipur, therefore, it is prayed that Divorce Case bearing Civil Suit A HMA 39/2024 pending before Additional District Judge, Dongargarh may be transferred to the Family Court, Raipur.

¶20

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that distance from Beejapur to Rajnandgaon is much nearer through Manpur Mohla, rather in that view of the matter, Raipur is more far from Beejapur, therefore, the transfer petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

5. Both the parties are residing at different places i.e. Beejapur and Dongargarh and divorce petition bearing Civil Suit A HMA 39/2024 is sought to be transferred at Raipur. As such, considering the contention put-forth by counsel for the respondent/husband that coming to Dongargarh through Manpur Mohla is much less than via Jagadalpur – Raiur, I do not find any

¶23

3

¶24

good ground to transfer the aforesaid divorce case from Dongargarh to Raipur.

¶25

6. Accordingly, the transfer petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge