Smt. Komal Singh Vs Rohit Singh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:7262

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 41 of 2024

¶6

Smt. Komal Singh W/o Rohit Singh Aged About 32 Years Currently Residing At Dharampura Ashoka Lifestyel H.No. 02, Jagdalpur District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Rohit Singh S/o Narendra Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o 15c/12m/1 Harwara, Dumanganj District Allahabad, (Now Prayagaraj) Uttar Pradesh Currently Posted As Assistant Commandant 195 Bataliyan Border Security Force Baikunthpur Siliguri West Bengal

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Girish Sahu, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar. Chandravanshi

Order On Board

10-02-2025

Heard.

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. 681 of 2017 (Rohit Singh Vs. Komal Singh) pending before First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur at Bastar (CG).

¶17

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 28.11.2012 at Raipur. They have been blessed with a child , aged about 11 years at present.

¶18

2

¶19

She further submits that alleging false & baseless allegations, respondent / husband has ousted the petitioner/wife from his company, therefore, she is residing along with her old aged parents at Jagdalpur. It is contended that respondent / husband is resident of West Bengal and presently, he is posted as Assistant Commandant, 195 Bataliyan, Border Security Force, Baikunthpur, Siliguri, West Bengal but he has filed application under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Civil Suit No. 681/2017 against the petitioner / wife seeking nullity of marriage before the Family Court, Raipur merely on the ground that marriage was performed at Raipur, whereas, neither any of the parties are resident of Raipur nor any other case is pending at Raipur. She further submitted that the petitioner/wife resides at Jagdalpur alongwith her old aged parents; distance between Jagdalpur & Raipur is about 300 kms., because of old age, her parents are unable to accompany her to come to Raipur to attend the hearing of the case filed by the respondent/husband, and the petitioner is having minor child, aged about 11 years, therefore, it would be difficult for her to come to Raipur from Jagdalpur to attend hearing of the aforesaid case, therefore, she prayed that Civil Suit No. 681/17 ( Rohit Singh Vs. Smt. Komal Singh) filed by respondent/husband before the Family Court, Raipur may be transferred to Family Court, Jagdalpur at Bastar.

¶20

3. Counsel for the respondent / husband raised objection with regard to transfer of the Civil Suit No. 681/2017 from Family Court, Raipur to Family Court, Jagdalpur at Bastar.

¶21

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

¶22

5. Admittedly, both the parties are not the resident of Raipur, but respondent / husband has filed aforesaid civil suit before the Family Court, Raipur only because their marriage was performed at Raipur. Since the

¶23

3

¶24

petitioner/ wife is resident of Jagdalpur at Bastar, distance between Raipur to Jagdalpur is about 300 kms., as stated by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner/wife is having minor child, aged about 11 years and her parents are old aged, therefore, of-course, it would be difficult for her to come to Raipur from Jagdalpur to attend hearing of the said civil suit.

¶25

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:-

¶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 -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.

¶28

8. Considering the facts situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of his order and in light of the principles of law laid down

¶29

4

¶30

by the Apex Court in aforecited cases; 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 Civil Suit No. 681/2017 (Rohit Singh vs. Komal Singh ) pending before the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur be transferred to the Family Court, Jagdalpur for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Judge, Family Court, Jagdalpur at Bastar within a period of 15 days.

¶32

10. It is further directed that the Family Court, Jagdalpur at Bastar 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.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶36

Amit/-

¶37

AMIT Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.14 DUBEY 10:49:25 +0530

Smt. Komal Singh v. Rohit Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Komal Singh v. Rohit Singh

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. Neha Ratre Vs Dhaneshwar Bhaskar

Smt. Deepti Singh Vs Shri Ankit Singh