Order On Board

12/02/2025

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner/wife has filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for transfer of divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.31/2024 (Chiranjeev Kumar Versus Smt. Jagriti Gurjar) pending before the District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) to the Family Court Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 22.02.2023 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Soon after one month of marriage, respondent/husband started harassing petitioner/wife physically & mentally and forcefully left his wife at her parental place and since then she is residing at Village Kharra, District Surajpur (C.G.). He further submitted that respondent has filed the divorce petition before the District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) bearing Civil Suit No.31/2024, the distance between Surajpur and Pendra Road is more than 200 Kms and there is no direct connectivity by road between these two places, however, there is train connectivity but timings are odd. It is further submitted petitioner/wife resides with her old aged mother and younger brother, thus, there is no one to accompany her to attend the divorce proceeding at Pendra Road, therefore, it would be difficult for her to go alone from Surajpur to Pendra Road. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the divorce case may be transferred from the District Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.) to the Family Court Surajpur, District Surajpur (C.G.).

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that petitioner/wife herself had left the company of respondent/husband. It is further submitted that petitioner has not pleaded in the petition that there is no one in family to accompany her to travel from Surajpur to Pendra Road, hence, the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully.

6. It was not in dispute that there is no direct bus connectivity, though there is direct train connectivity, but the timings are odd and there is no family member to accompany petitioner/wife to travel from Surajpur to Pendra Road.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at paras 9 which reads as under:-

"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.”

8. 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.

9. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and also considering the distance between aforesaid two places and further 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 opi