Smt. Maheswari Kurrey Vs Amardas Kurrey

Digitally Amardas Kurrey S/o Shri Hemant Das Kurrey Aged About 35 Years R/o Village signed by AJAY KUMAR Lalband Ward No.13, Tehsil P/s Navagarh Distt. Bemetra Cg DWIVEDI Date: ... Respondent. 2026.07.15 16:29:54 (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) +0530

¶10

	(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner	: Mr. AjayKumar Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate.

¶11

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

15/07/2026

¶14

The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') seeking the transfer of the divorce application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, bearing Case No.A/153/2025 (Amardas Kurre Vs. Smt. Maheshwari Kurre) from the Family Court Bemetara to the Family Court Raipur.

¶15

As per the contents of the transfer petition, the marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on

¶16

2

¶17

07.05.2017. After 2-3 years of marriage, the relationship between the parties turned sour, and the petitioner/wife started residing at her parental home at Raipur. Subsequently, the respondent/husband filed the application for divorce under Section 13(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the transfer of which is sought in the present petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is living separately due to cruelty committed by the husband. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to travel to Raipur for every hearing, due to the distance of approximately 70 Kms between Bemetara and Raipur. She has also filed an application for maintenance against the respondent under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), bearing Case No.375/2025, which is pending before the Family Court Raipur. Apart from that the applicant has lodged report against the husband and his family member for the offence under Section 498A & 34 of the IPC which is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur bearing Case No.4425/2021. He further submitted that it is wellsettled law that the convenience of the wife must be paramount while considering a transfer petition. Therefore, it is prayed that the transfer petition may be allowed.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that distance of Bemetara to Raipur of about 68-70 Kms is not too far particularly when there is direct bus connectivity between said two places.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material placed on record.

¶21

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:

¶22

3

¶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

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 Supreme Court in the case 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.

¶25

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid settled legal position that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial disputes, and the fact that a maintenance case filed by the petitioner and a criminal case under Section 498A/34 are already pending before the Family Court and JMFC Court at Raipur, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to transfer the proceedings to Raipur to mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner/wife and also for both the parties to attend hearing in one location.

¶26

4

¶27

Consequently considering the settled law and submission made by the applicant, the transfer petition is allowed . It is ordered that Case No.A/153/2025 (Amardas Kurre Vs. Smt. Maheshwari Kurre) be transferred from the Family Court Bemetara to the Family Court Raipur for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law.

¶28

The concerned Court is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid case to the transferee Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt or communication of this order.

¶29

Further, the transferee Family Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the Family Court for the early disposal of the case.

¶30

However, the respondent/husband is at liberty to join the proceedings before the concerned Family Court through Video Conferencing on dates when his personal appearance is not explicitly required by the Court.

¶31

Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶34

Ajay

Smt. Maheswari Kurrey v. Amardas Kurrey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Maheswari Kurrey v. Amardas Kurrey

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

Peri Shivangi Gautami Vs v. Aditya Sharma

Priyvartan Belgahe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anjulata Vs Beena Kumari

Ravindra Dongre Vs Ajay Sahu

Lakshmaneshwar Vs Anjana Jangde

In Reference of State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bhupendra Vishwakarma