Smt. Harsha Yadu Vs Vivek Yadu

Vivek Yadu S/o Late Giteshwar Singh Yadu Aged About 29 Years R/o Krishna Vijar Colony Dak Bangla Ward No 8 Gariyaband Tahsil And District Gariyaband (Cg)

¶11

... Respondent.

¶12

	(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

20/07/2026

¶16

The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') seeking the transfer of application filed by the respondent/husband under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, bearing Case No. 10A/2025 (Vivek Yadu Vs. Smt. Harsha Yadu), from the Family Court, Gariyaband to the Family Court, Balod.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on

¶18

2

¶19

10.02.2024. However, a short time after the marriage, the respondent ousted the petitioner from the matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act for declaring the marriage void ab initio on baseless grounds with regard to her mental health. The petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to travel to Gariyaband for every hearing due to the distance of approximately 300 kilometers toand-fro between Balod and Gariyaband. She has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, bearing Case No.53A/2025, which is currently pending before the Family Court, Balod. He further submits that it is well-settled law that the convenience of the wife must be kept paramount while considering a transfer petition. Therefore, it is prayed that the transfer petition may be allowed.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that there is direct bus and train connectivity between the two places.

¶21

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

¶22

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:

¶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

¶24

3

¶25

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

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.

¶27

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 is already pending before the Family Court Balod, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to transfer the proceedings to Family Court Balod to mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner/wife and also for both the parties to attend hearing in one location.

¶28

Consequently considering the settled law and submission made by the applicant, the transfer petition is allowed . It is ordered that Case No.10A/2025 (Vivek Yadu Vs. Smt. Harsha Yadu) be transferred from the Family Court, Gariyaband to the Family Court, Balod for hearing and disposal in accordance with the law.

¶29

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.

¶30

4

¶31

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 directed to cooperate with the Family Court for the early and efficacious disposal of the case.

¶32

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.

¶33

Pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶36

Ajay

Smt. Harsha Yadu v. Vivek Yadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Harsha Yadu v. Vivek Yadu

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Kanak Bai Vs Sarita Bai

Maheshwari Bai Vs Ramesh Lal Dodai

Hitachi Energy India Limited Vs M/S Sarda Energy and Minerals Limited

Manorama Patel Vs Dharmendra Patel

Anita Vs Varsha Singh

Sunil Basant Vs Smt. Shakuntala Basant