2026:CGHC:254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 135 of 2025 Smt. Nirmala Jain D/o Bahur Singh Sinha Aged About 39 Years W/o Keshav Lal Jain, R/o Near Balaji Chuna, Kanpa Basti, Mova, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.)

Digitally signed by ... Petitioner.

AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, Versus o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Keshav Lal Jain S/o Late Shankarlal Jain Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Teacher, R/o Date: 2026.01.06 10:41:46 +0530 Near Dadsena Hostel, Albelapara, Kanker, Thana And Tahsil- Kanker, District- South Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

... Respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate.

For Respondent : None for the respondent though notice has been served.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

05/01/2026

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of Civil Suit No.42-A/2025 (Keshav Lal Jain Vs. Smt. Nirmala Jain) from the Family Court Kanker to Family Court Raipur.

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 25.05.2015. After some time, the dispute arose between the parties, due to which, the petitioner started residing at her parental house at Raipur. At Raipur the petitioner filed application for grant of maintenance for her and her daughter before the Family Court Raipur. Subsequently, the respondent/husband has filed an application under Section 13 (1) (A) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Kanker for divorce and the petitioner is seeking transfer of said case to Family Court, Raipur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is very painful and difficult to travel to Family Court, Raipur to attend each and every hearing of the case as distance between the two courts is too far. He also submits that the petitioner is residing with her daughter and it is not easy to go with her on every hearing at Kanker. Therefore, the case of the respondent may be transferred to Family Court, Raipur for the convenience of the wife to participate in the proceedings.

4. None for the respondent though notice has been served.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition.

6. 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. It is held that 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. It is also held that 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.

7. Having regard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and in view of the aforesaid settled principle, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner.

8. Consequently, the Transfer Petition is allowed and it is ordered that Case bearing Civil Suit No.42-A/2025 pending before Family Court, Kanker be transfe