Smt. Mamta (Ridhhi) Kannoje v. Dogendra Kumar Kannoje
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 39 of 2025 1 - Smt. Mamta (Ridhi) Kanauje W/o Dongendra Kumar Kanauje, Aged About 24 Years R/o Kanchan Ganga, Phase - 2, Daganiya Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Shivansh Kinuaje S/o Dongendra Kumar Kanauje Aged About 2 Years R/o C/o Kanchan Ganga, Phase - 2, Daganiya Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Dongendra Kumar Kanauje S/o Taman Lal Kanauje Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Cherkapur Thana Palari, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioners For Respondent : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate None present, though served. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravansh Order on Board 28/03/2025 Heard. 1. Petitioner /wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transfer of Civil Suit No. HMA/168- A/2024 pending before the Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that marriage of petitioner No. 1/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 28.06.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Kushalpur, District Raipur. They have been blessed with a male child (petitioner No. 2), aged about 2 year at present residing with petitioner No. 1. It is submitted that because of physical and mental harrassment meted out to petitioner No. 1/wife by respondent / husband, she was compelled to live apart, therefore, she is residing with her minor child alongwith her parents at Raipur. He further submits that after filing maintenance application by petitioner No. 1/wife bearing M.C.C. No. 889 of 2024 {Smt. Mamta (Ridhhi) Kannoje vs. Dogendra Kumar Kannoje} before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), the respondent / husband has filed divorce petition bearing Case No. HMA/168-A/2024{ Dogendra Kumar Kannoje vs. Smt. Mamta (Ridhhi) Kannoje} before Family Court, Baloda-bazar. He further submits that distance between Baloda Bazar to Durg is 170 kms. to and fro and being mother of minor child, it would be difficult for the petitioner No. 1 to travel such a long distance, rather one maintenance case is already pending against the respondent/husband, therefore, it would not be inconvenient to the respondent/husband, if aforesaid divorce petition is transferred from Family Court, Baloda Bazar to Family Court, Raipur, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and Case No. HMA/168-A/2024 pending before the Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) may be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur. 3. Despite service of notice, neither respondent/husband present nor represented by any counsel. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the fact that distance between Baloda Bazar to Raipur is about 170 kms. to and fro; being mother of two year child (petitioner No. 2), it would be difficult for petitioner No. 1/wife to travel from Raipur to Balodabazar to attend the hearing of aforesaid civil suit. Further, one maintenance case bearing M.C.C. No. 889 of 2024 {Smt. Mamta (Ridhhi) Kannoje vs. Dogendra Kumar Kannoje} filed by the petitioner No. 1 /wife against the respondent/husband is already pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), therefore, respondent/husband has to go to attend hearing in that case, as such, it would not cause any difficulty to the respondent/husband, if divorce petition filed by him is transferred from Balodabazar, District Bhatapara to Raipur. 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 4 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. 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 husband. 8. Considering the facts situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of his order and in light of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in aforecited cases; it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No. HMA/168-A/2024 pending before the Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The District Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur within a period of 15 days. 10. It is made clear that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur shall expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously 5 preferably with a period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. 11. In view of above order, pending interim application, if any, stands
Decision
disposed of. No order as to costs. ( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Sd/- Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.03 11:11:05 +0530