Smt. Reema Yadu Vs Gautam Yadu

1 The applicant/wife has preferred the present Transfer Petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 5A/2024 (Gautam Yadu v. Smt. Reema Yadu), pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon (C.G.), to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.).

¶16

2 Notice issued to the respondent has been returned with the endorsement of the Process Server stating that the respondent was

¶17

2

¶18

not available at the given address as he was out of home, and that his mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) refused to accept service of notice.

¶19

3 In view of the aforesaid endorsement, the respondent is deemed to have been duly served.

¶20

4 Learned counsel for the applicant/wife submits that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 16-22022. Soon after the marriage, the respondent and his family members allegedly started subjecting the applicant to physical and mental harassment. On 22-10-2022, the applicant was allegedly driven out of the matrimonial home and she has since been residing with her parents at Anjora Dhaba, Post Nagpura, District Durg. It is further submitted that on 4-8-2023, the applicant instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Durg, seeking maintenance, which has been registered as Criminal MJC No. 1082/2023, wherein the respondent has already entered appearance. Learned counsel further submits that on 30-12024, the respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Thereafter, on 24-62024, the applicant filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Durg. It is also submitted that the distance between Durg and Kondagaon is approximately 540 kilometres (to and fro), making it extremely difficult for the applicant to travel such a long distance on every date of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that the maintenance proceedings instituted by the applicant are already pending before the Family Court, Durg, in which

¶21

3

¶22

the respondent has entered appearance. Therefore, if the civil suit instituted by the respondent is transferred from Kondagaon to Durg, it would also be convenient for the respondent, as he would be able to attend both proceedings at the same place. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present transfer petition be allowed.

¶23

5 Notice issued to respondent/husband has been refused to be taken by his mother and Bhabhi, therefore, it has been deemed that notice has been served to respondent, but none appears on his behalf.

¶24

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

¶25

7 Grounds taken for transfer of civil suit are that the applicant is presently residing with her parents at Durg and the distance between Durg and Kondagaon is approximately 540 kilometres (to and fro). Considering the said distance, it would be difficult and inconvenient for the applicant, being a lady residing with her parents, to undertake such travel on each date of hearing. Further, Criminal MJC No. 1082/2023 filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is pending before the Family Court, Durg, wherein the respondent has already entered appearance. Therefore, the respondent is required to attend the proceedings at Durg. In such circumstances, if the civil suit pending before the Family Court, Kondagaon is transferred to the Family Court, Durg, it would also be convenient for the respondent to attend both matters at one place.

¶26

4

¶27

8 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:-

¶28

"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.”

¶29

9 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another reported in 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 matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Versus Kishore Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.

¶30

10 Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's convenience must be looked into, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for.

¶31

5

¶32

11 Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No. 5A/2024 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon (CG) be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law.

¶33

12 The Principal Judge, Family Court, Kondagaon is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid case to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.) within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. It is further observed that after receiving the case on transfer, the transferee Court shall consider and decide the case as early as possible, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferor Court.

¶34

13 In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶37

Judge

¶38

Pathak

¶39

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.07.03 17:03:23 +0530

Smt. Reema Yadu v. Gautam Yadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Reema Yadu v. Gautam 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

Similar cases

Sachin Agarwal Vs Government of India

Savitri Vs Narendra Prasad

Hemant Kumar Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kamla Shukla Vs Hemant Shukla

Smt. Savita Rajput Vs Shri Siddharth Komal Singh Pardeshi

Sukhan Say Sidar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh