Tineshwari Nishad Vs Karunakar Nishad

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:5671

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 204 of 2025

¶6

Tineshwari Nishad W/o Shri Karunakar Nishad Aged About 33 Years R/o C/o Devaliram Nishad, Qtr No. 630, Azad Chowk, Near Gayatri Mandir, Nishad Medical Stores, Village And Post Mandhar, Police Station Dharsiva, Tahsil And District Raipur C.G.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

Karunakar Nishad S/o Shri K.P. Nishad Aged About 34 Years R/o Qtr No. 1/a Street No. 12, Sector- 05, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg C.G.

¶10

Digitally
signed by
AMARDEEP
AMARDEEP CHOUBEY
CHOUBEY Date:
2026.02.02
17:55:51
+0530

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

(Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. P.K.	Patel, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Ms. Aditi	Diwan, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

02/02/2026

¶16

1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking the transfer of Civil Suit No. A/874/2025, filed under Section 13(1-a)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the learned 3^rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, C.G. to the learned Family Court Raipur, C.G.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/husband filed an application under Sections 13(1A) and 13(1B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against the petitioner, seeking a decree of divorce to dissolve the marriage solemnized

¶18

2

¶19

between the parties on 06.05.2019, registered as Civil Suit No. A/874/2025. He further submits that the petitioner is a lady aged about 33 years residing in Raipur with her five-year-old child and she faces difficulties to attend the proceedings at Family Court Durg, which is 70 km away from Raipur on the scheduled dates of hearing. Such travel imposes severe hardship upon the petitioner, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed.

¶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 (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:-

¶23

" 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.

¶24

3

¶25

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.”

¶26

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.

¶27

7. Consequently, the Transfer Petition is allowed and it is ordered that Civil Suit No. A/874/2025 which is pending before the learned 3^rd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, C.G. be transferred to the learned Family Court Raipur, C.G. for its trial/disposal in accordance with law.

¶28

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.

¶29

9. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Court of learned Family Court, Raipur, C.G. on 27.02.2026.

¶30

Amardeep

Tineshwari Nishad v. Karunakar Nishad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tineshwari Nishad v. Karunakar Nishad

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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Yogesh Singh

Smt. Uma Mannewar Vs Shri Dharmesh Mannewar

Smt. Jyoti Shrivas Vs Vivek Kumar Shrivas

Ambika Vs Kamesh

Shiv Narayan Singh Vs Suhano

Sumitra Bai Vs Executive Engineer