1 CGHC010162132026 2026:CGHC:34377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 64 of 2026 Smt. Lalita Purena W/o Shri Bhagat Purena, Aged About 30 Years R/o Naya Gordha, Ward No. 01, Kasdol Thana And Tahsil - Kasdol Distrcit Balodabazar -Bhatapara C.G. ... Petitioner. Versus Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGHCOURT, o=HIGH Bhagat Purena S/o Late Shri Madanlal Purena, Aged About 33 Years R/o COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh,c=IN Village Risda, Thana Masturi Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Date: 2026.08.07 10:54:09 +0530 ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Shruti Jha, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') seeking the transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband, bearing Civil Suit No.24-A/2026 (Bhagat Purena Vs. Smt. Lalita Purena) from the Family Court, Bilaspur to the Family Court Balodabazar, District Baldoabazar-Bhatapara (CG). 2

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner (wife) was solemnized with the respondent (husband) in May 2019. Out of this marriage, they were blessed with two children, one aged about 5 years and the second aged about 2 years. However, after some time of marriage, relations between the parties became tense and sore. Thereafter, she started residing at her parental house with her daughter at Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, while the respondent started residing at Village Risda, Bilaspur. He further submits that the petitioner, along with her minor daughter, is unable to travel to the Family Court in Surguja for every hearing due to the distance of approximately 180 kilometers from her current residence. He also contends that it is a well-settled rule of law that the convenience of the wife must be kept paramount while considering a transfer petition. Therefore, it is prayed that the transfer petition may be allowed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that there is direct bus and train connectivity between the two places, and the distance is not very far. She further submits that earlier, the respondent was residing at Kasdol with the petitioner, but her brothers started harassing and threatening him to leave the place. Due to this, the respondent also filed a complaint at Police Station Kasdol against the brothers of the petitioner, however, the police did not take any action on the ground that the offence was non-cognizable. Under these circumstances, if the case is transferred, there would be a threat to the life of the respondent. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 3 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 case 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 husband.

6. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held 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.” 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the well-settled legal position that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial disputes, and the fact that the petitioner is residing with her two minor children, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court, Balodabazar. This will 4 mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner and enable both parties to attend hearings at a single location.

8. Consequently, in view of the settled law and the submissions made by the applicant, the transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that case bearing Civil Suit No.24-A/2026 (Bhagat Purena Vs. Smt. Lalita Purena) be transferred from the Family Court, Bilaspur to the Family Court Balodabazar, District Baldoabazar-Bhatapara (CG), for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 9. The transferor Court is directed to transmit the record of the case to the transferee Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt or communication of this order. 10. Further, the transferee Family Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties are directed to cooperate with the Family Court for an early and efficacious disposal of the case. 11. However, the respondent/husband shall be at liberty to join the proceedings before the Family Court through video conferencing on dates when his personal appearance is not explicitly required by the court. 12. Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay

1 CGHC010162132026 2026:CGHC:34377 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 64 of 2026 Smt. Lalita Purena W/o Shri Bhagat Purena, Aged About 30 Years R/o Naya Gordha, Ward No. 01, Kasdol Thana And Tahsil - Kasdol Distrcit Balodabazar -Bhatapara C.G. ... Petitioner. Versus Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGHCOURT, o=HIGH Bhagat Purena S/o Late Shri Madanlal Purena, Aged About 33 Years R/o COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh,c=IN Village Risda, Thana Masturi Distt. Bilaspur C.G. Date: 2026.08.07 10:54:09 +0530 ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Shruti Jha, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 06/08/2026 1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') seeking the transfer of the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband, bearing Civil Suit No.24-A/2026 (Bhagat Purena Vs. Smt. Lalita Purena) from the Family Court, Bilaspur to the Family Court Balodabazar, District Baldoabazar-Bhatapara (CG). 2

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner (wife) was solemnized with the respondent (husband) in May 2019. Out of this marriage, they were blessed with two children, one aged about 5 years and the second aged about 2 years. However, after some time of marriage, relations between the parties became tense and sore. Thereafter, she started residing at her parental house with her daughter at Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, while the respondent started residing at Village Risda, Bilaspur. He further submits that the petitioner, along with her minor daughter, is unable to travel to the Family Court in Surguja for every hearing due to the distance of approximately 180 kilometers from her current residence. He also contends that it is a well-settled rule of law that the convenience of the wife must be kept paramount while considering a transfer petition. Therefore, it is prayed that the transfer petition may be allowed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that there is direct bus and train connectivity between the two places, and the distance is not very far. She further submits that earlier, the respondent was residing at Kasdol with the petitioner, but her brothers started harassing and threatening him to leave the place. Due to this, the respondent also filed a complaint at Police Station Kasdol against the brothers of the petitioner, however, the police did not take any action on the ground that the offence was non-cognizable. Under these circumstances, if the case is transferred, there would be a threat to the life of the respondent. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 3 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 case 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 husband.

6. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022 SCC Online SC 1199), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held 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.” 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the well-settled legal position that the convenience of the wife is paramount in matrimonial disputes, and the fact that the petitioner is residing with her two minor children, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court, Balodabazar. This will 4 mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner and enable both parties to attend hearings at a single location.

8. Consequently, in view of the settled law and the submissions made by the applicant, the transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that case bearing Civil Suit No.24-A/2026 (Bhagat Purena Vs. Smt. Lalita Purena) be transferred from the Family Court, Bilaspur to the Family Court Balodabazar, District Baldoabazar-Bhatapara (CG), for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 9. The transferor Court is directed to transmit the record of the case to the transferee Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt or communication of this order. 10. Further, the transferee Family Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties are directed to cooperate with the Family Court for an early and efficacious disposal of the case. 11. However, the respondent/husband shall be at liberty to join the proceedings before the Family Court through video conferencing on dates when his personal appearance is not explicitly required by the court. 12. Pending interim applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay