JUDGMENT :

Present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) has been fled by the petitioner-wife seeking relief of transfer of application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “Act of 1955”) preferred by the respondent-husband before the Family Court, Raigarh, to Family Court, Raipur.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized on 21.06.2009 as per the Hindu customs and rituals at Korba, CG. Out of their wedlock two daughters were also born to them. Thereafter, on account of some family dispute their relations turned sour and for that now the petitioner is living separately at Raipur. He submits that respondent-husband fled an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 for dissolution of marriage before the Family Court, Raigarh and summons of that application have been received by the petitioner-wife. He further submits that since the relations between them seemed to be beyond repair, the petitioner started residing at Raipur with her old and infrm parents and two daughters, from where Raigarh is about 250 Kms. away. He submits that she has no fnancial source of her own, that there is none to accompany her to Raigarh and thus she fnds it extremely difcult and inconvenient to appear on each and every date in Family Court, Raigarh and therefore looking to the hardships likely to be faced by her the case may be transferred to Family Court, Raipur. The petitioner is also stated to have fled an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance registered as Case No. 351/2021 at Family Court, Raipur. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237.

3. Despite service of notice, nobody appeared for the respondent-husband nor any reply has been fled on his behalf.

4. Heard counsel for the petitioner-wife and perused the documents on record.

5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is residing at Raipur which is about 250 KM away from Raigarh where the respondent-husband has fled an application under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this petition have not been controverted by the respondent-husband and thus there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the averments made in the petition. Even otherwise, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the like matters in NCV Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627, has held as under:-

8. It is not disputed that the appellant is the resident of Chennai and that the appellant’s husband-respondent herein is the resident of Vellore and he is employed. The appellant who is 21 years old does not have any source of income of her own as she is not employed and is totally dependent on her parents for her livelihood. In order to attend the court proceedings of the case fled by her husband at Vellore she has to travel alone all the way from Chennai to Vellore as her parents are not in a position to accompany her on account of their old age. Secondly, the appellant has also fled a petition, H.M.O.P. No.1741 of 2021, for restitution of conjugal rights and another petition, M.C. Sr. No.672 of 2021, for her maintenance before the Family Court at Chennai.

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 seek