Smt. Shaweta Tiwari Vs Kamalkant Tiwari

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:2715

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 119 of 2025

¶6

Smt. Shaweta Tiwari W/o Kamalkant Tiwari, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bhanvreli, P.S. Saragaon District Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) At Present R/o - Village - Dharashiv P.S. Pamgarh District Janjgir - Champa C.G.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Kamalkant Tiwari S/o Ramsharan Tiwari, Aged About 39 Years R/o - Budhwari, Near Saraswati Shishu Mandir Ward No. 21 Korba Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Digitally signed by AMARDEEP AMARDEEP CHOUBEY CHOUBEY Date: 2026.01.19 10:42:23 +0530

¶12

(Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board

¶15

16/01/2026

¶16

1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking transfer the Case No. 71/2025, filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights pending before the learned Family Court, Korba, District Korba, C.G. to the Court of learned Family Court, Janjgir, District:Janjgir-Champa, C.G.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and were married on 08.02.2015 under Hindu customs. Out of their wedlock, two children

¶18

2

¶19

have born. Shortly after marriage, the respondent began subjecting the petitioner to cruelty, including physical assaults, often while intoxicated. Ultimately, he forced the petitioner to leave the matrimonial home and wrongfully retained the children. Despite repeated advice from the petitioner’s parents, the respondent and his family refused her return and denied her access to the children. The petitioner has been residing at the matrimonial home since August 2024. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 144 of BNSS 2023 before the learned Family Court, Janjgir-Champa, which remains pending; the respondent is appearing therein. Apart from that, the respondent/husband instituted a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Family Court, Korba. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is unable to attend the Court at Korba due to the absence of any elder family member who could accompany her. The petitioner is a resident of Village Dharashiv, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, from where there is no direct transport connectivity to Korba. To reach Korba, the petitioner has to first travel from her village to Janjgir and thereafter from Janjgir to Korba, which causes extreme difficulty and hardship.

¶20

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made in the petition.

¶21

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶22

5. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik

¶23

3

¶24

(2022 SCC Online SC 1199) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that generally it is wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

¶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

10 .Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.”

¶27

6. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the aforesaid principles, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner.

¶28

7. Consequently, the Transfer Petition is allowed and it is ordered that Case No. 71/2025, filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights which is pending before the learned Family Court, Korba, District Korba, C.G. be transferred to the Court

¶29

4

¶30

of learned Family Court, Janjgir, District:Janjgir-Champa, C.G. for its trial/disposal in accordance with law.

¶31

8. Further, the respondent/husband would be at liberty to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing/virtually unless otherwise directed by the concerned Court.

¶32

9. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Court of learned Family Court, Janjgir, District: Janjgir-Champa on 16.02.2026.

¶33

SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge

¶34

Amardeep

Smt. Shaweta Tiwari v. Kamalkant Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shaweta Tiwari v. Kamalkant Tiwari

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

Ramdayal Vs Mangli Bai

Kavita Kushwaha Vs Jagmohan Kashyap

Hem Bai Sahu Vs Kisano Sahu

M/S Tirupati Minerals Private Limited, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tabasum Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bundeli Bai Vs Chief Manager, South Easter Coal Limited