Allowed¶34

Smt. Ranjeeta Thakur v. Rajendra Thakur

Chhattisgarh HC1 Mar 2026TPC/43/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer petition by wife under Section 24 CPC; transfer of husband's Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 restitution of conjugal rights suit (Civil Suit No. 120A/2024) from Family Court, Balod to Family Court, Jagdalpur; wife's convenience; balance of convenience; no independent income; distance 230–240 km; safety apprehension; video conferencing rejected; reliance on N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199); Chhattisgarh High Court; TPC No. 43 of 2025; Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; decided 02/03/2026; appearance directed on 08.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Transfer petition allowed; Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 transferred from the Family Court, Balod to the Family Court, Jagdalpur; both parties directed to appear before the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur on 08.04.2026. ¶34

Smt. Ranjeeta Thakur Vs Rajendra Thakur — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 (the respondent-husband's Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 suit for restitution of conjugal rights) pending before the Family Court, Balod should be transferred to the Family Court, Jagdalpur under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in view of the petitioner-wife's circumstances. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The transfer petition is allowed; Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod District Balod (C.G.) stands transferred to the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner-wife: she is residing with her parents at Jagdalpur, has no independent source of income, and the distance between Jagdalpur and Balod is substantial.

¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; Order dated 02/03/2026) allowed a wife's transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (TPC No. 43 of 2025). Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 — the husband's suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod — was transferred to the Family Court, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199) for the principle that, in matrimonial matters, generally it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer, the Court held that the balance of convenience favoured the petitioner, who resided with her parents at Jagdalpur, had no independent source of income, and faced a distance of more than 230–240 kilometres and an apprehended threat to her safety if required to attend at Balod. The respondent's suggestion of video-conferencing attendance did not find favour. Both parties were directed to appear before the Family Court, Jagdalpur on 08.04.2026.

¶1

Digitally signed by SHOAIB SHOAIB ANWAR ANWAR Date:2026.03.03 15:03:40 +0530

¶2

2026:CGHC:10868

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 43 of 2025

¶6

Smt. Ranjeeta Thakur W/o Rajendra Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Through Shir Ramanand Mishra House No. 115 Bhathipara Tahsil And District - Bastar (C.G)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

Rajendra Thakur S/o Shri Bhupendra Thakur Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 04 New Bus Stand Dalli Rajhara Tahsil Daundi District - Balod (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

(Cause title taken from CIS)

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Apoorva Ghore, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

02/03/2026

¶16

The instant petition has been 4led under Section 24 of the Code

¶17

of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer

¶18

of Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 4led by the respondent/husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod District Balod (C.G.), to the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.).

¶19

The petitioner and respondent are legally wedded Hindus, married on 24.02.2023 as per customary rites. After marriage, the petitioner resided at her matrimonial home with the respondent and his family.

¶20

Subsequently, the respondent and his family allegedly began quarrelling with the petitioner and restricted her communication with her parents. Upon objection, she was taken to Bilaspur, where the alleged harassment continued. Thereafter, the petitioner was left at her parental home, where she has been residing since.

¶21

Despite repeated attempts to return to her matrimonial home, the respondent allegedly refused to take her back and threatened divorce. The petitioner is a homemaker with no independent income and is dependent on her parents. She later received notice from the Family Court, Balod, regarding a petition 4led by the respondent under Section 9 of the Hindu

¶22

Marriage Act, 1955 (Civil Suit No. 120A/2024) on grounds of desertion, adultery, and cruelty.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently residing with her parents at Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.), and is facing considerable di=culty in appearing before the Family Court at Balod on each and every date of hearing in view of the distance of more than 230–240 kilometers and her lack of independent income. It is further submitted that she apprehends threat to her safety if compelled to attend the proceedings at Balod.

¶24

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for transfer and submits that the petitioner herself is trying to harass the respondent by 4ling the present transfer petition. It is further submitted that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are false and baseless and that she has deliberately withdrawn from the society of the respondent without any su=cient cause. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner is facing any inconvenience, she may be permitted to appear before the Family Court, Balod through video conferencing, and therefore no case for transfer is made

¶25

out.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

¶27

available on record.

¶28

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

¶29

(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:-

¶30

" 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.

¶31

10 .Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in diDerent 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

¶32

avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conEict of decisions.”

¶33

Having regard to the submissions made and in view of the aforesaid principles and also considering the fact that the petitioner is residing with her parents at Jagdalpur, has no independent source of income, and the distance between Jagdalpur and Balod is substantial, this Court is of the opinion that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner.

¶34

Accordingly, the transfer petition is allowed. Civil Suit No. 120A/2024 pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balod District Balod (C.G.) is hereby transferred to the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G.) for its trial and disposal in accordance with law.

¶35

11.Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned Family Court, Jagdalpur on 08.04.2026.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶38

Shoaib

Smt. Ranjeeta Thakur v. Rajendra Thakur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranjeeta Thakur v. Rajendra Thakur

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

Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Vs Subhash Jaiswal

Noore Aalam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Bk Chawla Contractor Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L.)

M/S Raghukul Realities Vs Sandeep Sharma

Smt. Prerna Mehta Vs Aman Lunia

Jagdish Vs Ghasi