Smt. Raj Bai @ Dharini Sahu Vs Dharmendra Kumar Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

CGHC010200792026 2026:CGHC:30831

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

TPC No. 83 of 2026

¶6

Smt. Raj Bai @ Dharini Sahu W/o Dharmendra Kumar Sahu (D/o Nand Kumar Sahu) Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Lulikasa, Post And Police Station Gaindatola, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner.

¶8

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.07.22 12:16:27 +0530

¶9

versus

¶10

Dharmendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shriram Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Village, Post Belmand, Tahsil And District Balod Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent.

¶12

For Petitioner	:	Ms. C. K. Nawrang, Advocate.
For Respondent	:	None though notice has been served.

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

21/07/2026

¶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 the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband, bearing case No.Civil Suit A/105/2025 (Dharmendra Kumar Sahu Vs. Smt. Raj Bai @ Dharini Sahu) from the Family Court Balod, District Balod to the Family Court Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon.

¶17

2

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband was solemnized in the year 2019. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with a child who, unfortunately, is physically disabled. After some time, matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, compelling the petitioner to leave her matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home in Rajnandgaon along with her 4-year-old child and elderly parents. She filed a maintenance application against the respondent before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, bearing Case No. 216/2025. The said application was allowed, directing the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner. However, as the respondent failed to pay the maintenance amount, an execution application filed by the wife remains pending before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no independent source of income and finds it extremely difficult to go and return for a distance of approximately 145 kilometers to attend every hearing at the Family Court, Balod, particularly while caring for her 4-yearold physically disabled child. Referring to well-settled principles of law, counsel contends that the convenience of the wife must be kept paramount while deciding a transfer petition. Therefore, it is prayed that the transfer petition may be allowed.

¶19

None for the respondent though notice has been served.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material placed on record.

¶21

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

¶22

3

¶23

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.

¶24

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:

¶25

"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.”

¶26

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the distance of approximately 145 kilometers between Rajnandgaon and Balod, the petitioner's responsibility to care for her 4-year-old physically disabled child, this Court is of the view that it would be difficult for the petitioner/wife to travel to Balod to defend the case on every date of hearing. Keeping in mind the well-settled principle that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial transfer petitions, the present petition deserves to be allowed.

¶27

Accordingly, Transfer Petition is allowed. Civil Suit A/105/2025 (Dharmendra Kumar Sahu Vs. Smt. Raj Bai @ Dharini Sahu) pending before

¶28

4

¶29

the Family Court, Balod, District Balod is directed to be transferred to the Family Court, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, for hearing and disposal in accordance with law

¶30

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

¶31

Further, the transferee Family Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings 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 an early and efficacious disposal of the case.

¶32

However, the respondent/husband shall be at liberty to join the proceedings before the Family Court through video conferencing on dates when his personal appearance is not explicitly required by the court.

¶33

Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶34

Sd/(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶35

Ajay

Smt. Raj Bai @ Dharini Sahu v. Dharmendra Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Raj Bai @ Dharini Sahu v. Dharmendra Kumar Sahu

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

Smt. Priyanka Tiwari Vs Rajnish Kumar Tiwari

Smt. Harsha Yadu Vs Vivek Yadu

Dr. Parikshit Charan Vs Professor Ram Kumar Kakani

Farhana Bi Vs Israr Mohammad

Mrs. Sunita Yadav Vs Mrs. Panchbati Bai Yadav

Bhagirathi Tamrakar Vs Bhi. Maheshwar Rao