Smt. Latika Sirmour v. Ravinagar Pandari Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

Shri Alok Sirmour S/o Late Bholanath Simour Aged About 49 Years R/o 21/23, Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Khandelwal, Adv on behalf of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Santosh Kumar Verma, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice ) Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 30/07/2026

#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.A/21/2026 (Alok Sirmour Vs. Latika Sirmour) from the Family Court Durg to Family Court Raipur.

#2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the 2 petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 31.05.2010 and out of said wedlock they blessed with son who is presently aged about 14 years. However, after some time of marriage, the respondent started harassing the petitioner for demand of dowry and subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, due to which the petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home. She has also filed an application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance before the learned Family Court Raipur bearing MCC No.1332/2025. The petitioner has also instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, registered as MJC No. 13051/2026, before the Court of JMFC, Raipur on 17.12.2025. Subsequently, the respondent/husband has filed a petition under Section 13(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Family Court, Durg. He further submits that the petitioner has no independent source of income and is unable to travel to the Family Court Raipur for every hearing due to the distance of approximately 80 kilometers to and fro. He also contends that it is a well-settled position 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 too far. Further, the wife is residing in the house of the husband with son at Bhilai, due to which, he is residing in rented house. Hence, he prays to reject the petition.

#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 two cases filed by the petitioner are already pending before the Courts at Raipur, this Court is of the opinion that it would be just and proper to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court 4 Raipur. This will mitigate the hardship faced by the petitioner/wife and enable both parties to attend hearings in one 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 Civil Suit No. A/21/2026 (Alok Sirmour Vs. Latika Sirmour) pending before the Family Court Durg be transferred to Family Court Raipur for hearing 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