##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:6481

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

TPC No. 189 of 2025

Smt. Chandani Dhritlahare (Suman) D/o Shyam Ram Dhritlahare Aged

About 32 Years R/o Village Khaira Post And Thana Kasdol, District-

Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Defendant)

... Petitioner

versus

Yashpal Singh Suman S/o Sahdev Prasad Suman Aged About 42 Years

Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre Aundhi, District- Mohla- Manpur-

Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff)

... Respondent

(Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System)

Digitally For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tiwari, Advocate on behalf of

signed by

AMARDEEP

AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Ms. Nazmi Begam, Advocate.

CHOUBEY Date:

2026.02.06

10:35:30

+0530

For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Judgment on Board

05/02/2026

1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking the transfer of HMA Suit

No.10/2025, filed under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 pending before the learned District Judge, FTC, Ambagarh

Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. to the learned Family Court

Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage

between the parties was solemnized on 13.06.2019 and out of their

wedlock, they blessed with one baby boy, presently aged about 5

2

years. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a lady

aged about 32 years presently residing with her child at village

Khaira District Balodabazar-Bhatapara and she faces difficulties to

attend the proceedings before the Court of learned District Judge,

FTC, Ambagarh, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. which is 259 km away

from her present residing place, on the scheduled dates of hearing.

Such travel imposes severe hardship upon the petitioner, therefore,

the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made in the

petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings

and documents appended thereto.

5. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik

(2022 SCC Online SC 1199) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

observed that generally it is wife’s convenience which must be

looked at while considering transfer. The relevant portion of the

aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-

"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

3

considering transfer.

10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending

in different Courts between the same parties which

raise common question of fact and law, and when the

decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is

desirable that they should be tried together by the

same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the

same issues and conflict of decisions.”

6. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and in view of the aforesaid principles, this Court is inclined to allow

the prayer made by the petitioner.

7. Consequently, the Transfer Petition is allowed and it is ordered that

HMA Suit No. 10 of 2025 which is pending before the Court of

learned District Judge, FTC, Ambagarh, Chowki, District

Rajnandgaon, C.G. be transferred to the learned Family Court

Balodabazar, District:Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. for its

trial/disposal in accordance with law.

8. Further, the respondent/husband would