Uma Baghel Vs Rajat Maglan

Rajat Maglan S/o Shri Satish Kumar Maglan, Aged About 30 Years R/o House No. 526 Road No. 4, Ward No. 19, Gurudwara Gurunanak Nagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District - Durg (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Krishna Kumar Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Ms. Nidhi Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
	B.P. Sharma, Advocate

¶15

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

13/04/2026

¶18

By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 980/2024, filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the learned Family Court, Durg, C.G. to the learned Family Court Rajnandgaon, C.G.

¶19

2

¶20

(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, registered as Civil Suit No. 980/2024 against the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights between them. He further submits that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 26.04.2024 according to Hindu rites and rituals in the presence of family members of both the petitioner and the respondent at Arya Samaj Mandir, and after performing the said marriage, the respondent took the petitioner to his house for performing matrimonial obligations. However, after some time of marriage, the family members of the respondent used to subject her to cruelty, due to which the respondent left the petitioner at her parental house on 31.05.2024 with an assurance to bring her back to the matrimonial home once everything would be alright. The petitioner bona fide believed upon the said assurance, but the respondent did not take her back to her matrimonial house. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Durg seeking restitution of conjugal rights between the parties.

¶21

(ii) He further submits that initially the petitioner was residing at Bhilai, therefore, she had filed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court Durg, however, at present she has been residing with her parents at Tahsil Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon since 31.05.2024; and she faces difficulty in attending the proceedings at Family Court, Durg,

¶22

3

¶23

which is situated at a considerable distance from Rajnandgaon. Such travel imposes severe hardship upon the petitioner, as she is a poor lady and has no source of income. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent by opposing the aforesaid prayer, submits that there is no sufficient ground for transfer of the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 980/2024 pending before the Family Court, Durg to Family Court Rajnandgaon.

¶25

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

¶26

In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (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:-

¶27

"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

¶28

4

¶29

which must be looked at while considering transfer.

¶30

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.”

¶31

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

¶32

Accordingly, the Transfer Petition is allowed and it is ordered that Civil Suit No. 980/2024 which is pending before the learned Family Court, Durg, C.G. be transferred to the learned Family Court Rajnandgaon, C.G. for its trial/disposal in accordance with law.

¶33

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

¶34

Both the parties are directed to remain present before the learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, C.G. on 10.06.2026 .

¶35

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶36

$. Bhilwar

Uma Baghel v. Rajat Maglan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma Baghel v. Rajat Maglan

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

Ghasnin Bai Vs Gendram

Paras Pandey Vs Nohar Prasad ( Dead) through His Lrs. (a). Manoj Kumar

Chief Engineer, Vs Chameli Bai

Shambhu Vs a) Ramprakash

Chain Kuwar Vs Smt. Maniyaro

Smt. Dulaurin Bai Vs Abhishek Kumar Verma