2025:CGHC:55532 NAFR AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.11.17 10:36:54 +0530 TPC No. 90 of 2025 Smt. Megha Soni W/o Shri Rajkishore Soni Aged About 37 Years R/o At- Through Vinod Agrawal's House, Behind Maharashtrian Teli Bhawan, Ashwani Nagar, P.S. -

Purani Basti, District - Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner.

Versus Rajkishore Soni S/o Late Shri Jugalkishore Soni Aged About 39 Years R/o At - Sonar Para Ward No.-33, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr. L. K. Mishra, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Prakhar Datt, Adv on behalf of Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

14/11/2025

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the petitioner/wife seeking transfer of Case No.19A/2025 (Rajkishore Soni Vs. Smt. Megha Soni) from the Family Court Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (CG) to Family Court Raipur, District Raipur (CG).

2. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.06.2022 and out of such relation a son was born on 18.12.2015. After some time, the dispute arose between the parties due to which the petitioner started residing at her parental house at Raipur. Subsequently, the respondent/husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Rajnandgaon for restitution of conjugal rights and the petitioner is seeking transfer of said case to Family Court, Raipur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is living with her

8 years old child at Raipur and she is facing difficulties to travel to Family Court, Rajnandgaon to attend each and every hearing of the case as distance between the two courts is about 70 Kms. Apart from this, one maintenance application filed by the petitioner is pending before the Family Court Raipur. 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. Learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the aforesaid prayer.

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 No.19A/2025 pending before Family Court, Raj