Smt. Sunita Sahu Vs Chandrakumar

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:34330

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 79 of 2025

¶6

Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Chandrakumar, D/o Ramnarayan Aged About 27 Years R/o Rumgara, Ward No. 24, P.S. Balko Nagar, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Chandrakumar S/o Puniram Aged About 27 Years R/o Dharashiv, P.S. Nawagarh District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Vishvanath Prasad Shrivas, Advocate.

¶11

(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Order on Board

18/07/2025

1. 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. 103-A/2025 (Chandrakumar Vs. Smt. Sunita Sahu) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa to Family Court, Korba.

¶16

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 23.05.2019 at village Rumgara as per Hindu custom and rituals. After

¶17

2

¶18

marriage, they lived together only for one year, thereafter, respondent / husband started harrassing petitioner wife mentally & physically and ousted her, therefore, the petitioner / wife is residing alongwith her parents at Korba since 2020. She further submits that the petitioner/ wife has filed execution case bearing MJC No. 39 / 2025 for recovery of maintenance amount before Family Court, Korba, District Korba and also filed one application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 bearing MJC (Criminal) No. 23 / 2020 against the respondent/husband, which is pending consideration before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District Korba. He submits that respondent/husband has filed divorce case bearing Civil Suit No. 103-A/2025 before Principal Judge, Family Court,Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) only to harass to the petitioner/wife. It is submitted distance between Janjgir to Korba is about 120 kms. to and fro, therefore, being a lady, it would be difficult for her to travel from Korba to Janjgir Champa to attend the hearing of divorce case, therefore, it is prayed that Civil Suit No. 103-A/2025 filed by respondent/husband may be transferred from Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa to Judge, Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

¶19

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / husband would submit that though distance between Janjgir-Champa to Korba is only 120 kms. to and fro, but there is direct train connectivity between these two places, therefore, it would not be difficult for petitioner / wife to go to attend hearing of divorce case at Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, therefore, transfer petition filed by the petitioner / wife may be rejected.

¶20

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

¶21

3

¶22

5. The ground taken for the transfer of divorce case is that one maintenance case and one domestic violence case filed by the petitioner / wife in respect of both the parties are pending before the Court at Korba, therefore, it would be convenient for both the parties, if divorce case bearing Civil Suit No. 103-A/2025 filed by respondent / husband before the Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa be transferred to Family Court, Korba,District Korba, rather it would not cause any difficulty for the husband, as he has to go in the hearing of aforesaid two cases filed by the petitioner/wife in the Court at Korba.

¶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

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

¶26

4

¶27

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 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.

¶29

9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No. 103-A/2025 (Chandrakumar Vs. Smt. Sunita Sahu) pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir Chama be transferred to Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Judge, Family Court, Korba, within a period of 15 days.

¶30

10. It is further directed that the Judge, Family Court, Korba (C.G.) shall 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

11. Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶34

Judge

¶35

Amit/AMITKUMARDUBEY Digitallysigned byAMITKUMARDUBEYDate:2025.07.2410:56:53+0530

¶36

5