Smt. Roshni Maurya Vs Shri Vikas Maurya

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:8494

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 218 of 2024

¶6

Smt. Roshni Maurya W/o Vikas Maurya Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 67, Ward No. 9, Near Shitala Talab, Asha Niwas, Kohka, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

Shri Vikas Maurya S/o S.K. Maurya Aged About 32 Years R/o B-201, Shri Krishna Apartment, L.I.C. Colony, Mova, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Bhelonde, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None present, though served.

¶12

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

18/02/2025

¶15

Petitioner wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of HMA No. 669/2024 (Vikas Maurya vs. Roshni Maurya) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to the Family Court, Durg (C.G.)

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 28.11.2019. After marriage, they resided together at Raipur and they were blessed with one female child, presently aged about 1 ½ years. After the birth of female child, the petitioner has been harassed mentally and physically

¶17

Digitally signed by BINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date:2025.02.20 10:32:22 +0530

¶18

2

¶19

and she was compelled to live apart from her husband and she is currently residing at her parental house at Kohka, Bhilai along with her infant child. He further submits that the petitioner has filed a maintenance case bearing Cr. MJC N0.800/2024, application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing Civil Suit No.778/24 and application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing Civil Suit No.770/2024 against the husband, which are pending for consideration in the Family Court, Durg. Despite that, respondent/husband has filed divorce petition bearing HMA No. 669/2024 in the Family Court, Raipur, therefore, he prayed divorced petition bearing HMA No. 669/2024 may be transferred to Family Court, Durg (C.G.).

¶20

3 . Despite service of notice, neither the respondent appeared nor any representation was made on his behalf.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

¶22

The ground for transferring the divorce petition is that three cases filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent/husband bearing Cr. MJC N0.800/2024, Civil Suit No.778/24 and Civil Suit No.770/2024 are already pending in Family Court Durg. Though the distance between Raipur to Durg is about 40 km, but since three cases are pending against the husband in the Family Court, Durg, therefore, transferring of divorce case bearing HMA No.669/2024 filed by the husband/respondent shall be appropriate for both the parties, if it is transferred from Family Court Raipur to Family Court, Durg.

¶23

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:-

¶24

3

¶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 socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

¶26

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi -v- Kishore Babulal Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

¶27

Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of this 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

Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the divorce case bearing HMA No.669/2024 (Vikas Maurya v. Roshni Maurya) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court Durg for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Family Court Durg within a period of 15 days.

¶29

4

¶30

It is further directed that the Family Court Durg 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.

¶31

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

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶34

Bini

Smt. Roshni Maurya v. Shri Vikas Maurya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Roshni Maurya v. Shri Vikas Maurya

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

Smt. Basanti Lakra Vs Manoj Kumar Mehta

Mithilesh Sharma Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Smt. Meera Gupta Vs Chakradhar Gupta

Bhavani Shankar Sahu Vs Shivprasad

Rahul Jaiswal Vs Coal India Limited

Agrawal Traders Poha Mill Vs Ku. Mansi Verma