ORAL ORDER

19-2-2024

1. Applicant has preferred this TPC under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No. HM 64- A/2023 (Jhanak Lal Dhritlahre Vs. Smt. Nitu Dhritlahre) pending before the Judge, Family Court, Dhamtari (CG) to Family Court, Mahasamund (CG).

2. Facts of the case, leading to file instant petition, in brief, are that, marriage of applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solmenized on 6-5-2022. After marriage, the applicant resided for about 11 months in matrimonial house and thereafter went to her parental home on 26-3- 2023 and did not return to her matrimonial house. The respondent/ husband filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, registered as Civil Suit No. HM 64-A/2023, for restitution of conjugal right at Family Court, Dhamtari, for transfer of which, instant transfer petition has been filed.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant/wife that, the husband has filed the civil suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, only to harass the wife. It is submitted that the applicant/wife has no source of income. She is having a female child of 12 months. She is residing with her old aged parents. It is submitted that distance between Mahasamund to Dhamtari is approximately 70 km and the applicant is single lady, therefore it is harsh for a single lady to travel total 140 km up and down along with a child of 12 months only, for attending the court proceeding, as her daughter is also residing with the applicant. Hence on this ground also, Civil Suit bearing No HM 64-A/2023 pending before the Family Court, Dhamtari may be transferred to Family Court, Mahasamund.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that distance between Dhamtari and Mahasamund is only 70 km and there is direct connectivity of bus service. The Family Court, Dhamtari has already granted Rs. 400/- to the applicant/wife for traveling expenses per appearance. Hence, there is no justifiable ground to transfer the case from Dhamtari to Mahasamund.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the transfer petition.

6. The ground taken for transfer of Civil Suit is that the the husband has filed the civil suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act only to harass the wife, she has no source of income, she is having a female child of 12 months, she is residing with her old aged parents, distance between Mahasamund to Dhamtari is approximately 70 km, it is harsh for applicant to travel total 140 km up and down along with a child of 12 months only, for attending the court proceeding.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (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 -v- Kumar Sanjay and another [(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 -v- Kishore Babulal Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husba