JUDGMENT :

Present application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) has been fled by the petitioner No.3-wife seeking relief of transfer of Civil Suit fled under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, (for short “Act”) preferred by the respondent-husband before the Family Court, Bilaspur, to Family Court, Raipur.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of the petitioner No.3 with the respondent was solemnized on 16.12.2011 as per the Hindu customs and rituals at Punjab Gurudwara, Raipur, CG. Out of their wedlock two sons (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein) were also born to them and they at present are residing with mother (petitioner No.3 herein). Thereafter, on account of some family dispute their relations turned sour and for that now petitioner is living separately at Raipur. He submits that respondent-husband fled an application under Section 6 of the Act for custody of children before the Family Court, Bilaspur and summons of that application have been received by the petitioner-wife where once she appeared also. He further submits that since the relations between them seemed to be beyond repair, the petitioner-wife started residing at Raipur with her two sons, from where Bilaspur is about 120 Kms. away. He submits that she has no financial source of her own, that there is none to accompany her to Bilaspur and thus she finds it extremely difficult and inconvenient to appear on each and every date in Family Court, Bilaspur 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 at Family Court, Raipur and when the respondent-husband came to know about the same, as a counterblast he fled the suit under Section 6 of the Act at Family Court, Bilaspur. 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 120 KM away from Bilaspur where the respondent-husband has fled an application under Section 6 of the Act. 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 stra