Smt. Neha Ratre Vs Dhaneshwar Bhaskar

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:7277

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 225 of 2024

¶6

1 - Smt. Neha Ratre D/o Mahesh Ram Ratre Aged About 27 Years At Present Resident Of Quarter No. M-85, Katainar, Police Station And Post Bankimongara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, (C.G.)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Dhaneshwar Bhaskar S/o Devlal Bhaskar, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Sarsinva, Tahsil Sarsinva, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, (C.G.)

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Harshmandar Rastogi, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Alok Kumar Dubey, Adv.

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar. Chandravanshi

¶12

Order On Board 10-02-2025

¶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. A/39/2023 (Dhaneshwar Bhaskar v. Neha Ratre) pending before Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) to the Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

¶15

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 27.04.2021, but

¶16

2

¶17

after three months of the marriage, respondent/husband started harassing the petitioner/wife physically & mentally and he (respondent) with the help of his brother-in-law ( thtk th ) forcefully dropped the petitioner/wife at her parental place, thereafter, she is residing alongwith her old aged parents at Katainar, Police Station Bankimongara, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). It is further contended that respondent/husband has filed divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. A/39/2023 before Additional District Judge / District Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.); distance between Sarangarh to Katghora is about 150 kms and there is no direct connectivity between these two places. It is further submitted that the petitioner/wife has already filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the respondent/husband, which is pending before the Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, District Korba, therefore, respondent/husband has to come at Katghora to attend hearing in that case, as such, it would not cause any difficulty to the respondent / husband, if divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband is transferred from Sarangarh to Katghora, rather if it is not transferred, then considering distance and no direct connectivity between aforesaid two places, it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to go to Sarangarh from Katghora to attend hearing of the divorce petition, hence, it is prayed that divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. A/39/2023 may be transferred from the Court of District Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.).

¶18

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband submits that the petitioner/wife has already filed maintenance application before Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. It is further submitted that application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the petitioner/wife was also dismissed for want of

¶19

3

¶20

prosecution. She also did not present in counselling process, therefore, present transfer petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶21

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

¶22

5. Having regard to the fact that distance between Sarangarh to Katghora is about 150 kms. and it was also stated that there is no direct connectivity between these two places, hence, if the case is not transferred from Sarangarh to Katghora, then it would be more problematic to the petitioner / wife, instead of respondent/husband. Further, since one maintenance case bearing Criminal MJC No. 27/2024 is already pending before Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), therefore, respondent/ husband has to go to attend hearing in that case, as such, it would not cause any difficulty to the respondent / husband, if divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband is transferred from Sarangarh to Katghora,

¶23

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:-

¶24

"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 .”

¶25

4

¶26

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 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. A/39/2023 (Dhaneshwar Bhaskar v. Neha Ratre) pending before Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, District Korba for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Upper District Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, District Korba within a period of 15 days.

¶29

10. It is further directed that the Family Court (Camp Court), Katghora, District Korba 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 signedby AMIT KUMAR KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.14 DUBEY 11:21:23 +0530

¶35

5

Smt. Neha Ratre v. Dhaneshwar Bhaskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Neha Ratre v. Dhaneshwar Bhaskar

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

Shrikant Motghare Vs Smt. Reeta Shrikant Motghare

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Seema Manhare

Mahendra Alias Raju Rajput Vs Kumari Nidhi

Smt. Anita Kashyap Vs Pankaj Kashyap

Smt. Deepti Singh Vs Shri Ankit Singh

Smt. Anita Yadav Vs Ramprakash Yadav