Anand Niteen Jhariya v. Smt. Suman Jhariya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 40 of 2025 1 - Smt. Suman Jhariya W/o Anand Niteen Jhariya Aged About 30 Years R/o Through D/o Shri Narendra Jhariya, Presently Residing Of Village Mandlatola, Police Station Bodla, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - Anand Niteen Jhariya S/o Late Leeladhar Jhariya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Dumardih, Police Station Utai, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent : Respondent - Mr. Anand Niteen Jhariya, is present in person. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. Petitioner /wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transfer of Civil Suit No. 78 / 2025 titled as ‘Anand Niteen Jhariya vs. Smt. Suman Jhariya” pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg to the Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 05.02.2017 as per Hindu rites and rituals. They have been blessed with a girl child, aged about 2 7 years at present. It is submitted that the respondent / husband, after consuming liquor, used to commit marpeet with the petitioner/wife repeatedly and because of such harrassment meted out to the petitioner/wife by respondent/husband, she was was compelled to live apart, thereafter, she is residing with her minor child aged about 7 years alongwith her parents at Kabeerdham, District Kawardha. He further submits that after filing maintenance application by petitioner wife bearing MJC Case No. 72 of 2024 {Suman Jharia Vs. Anand Nitin Jharia} against the respondent / husband before Judge, Family Court, Kabeerdham (C.G.), the respondent / husband has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. 78/2025{ Anand Nitin Jharia vs. Suman Jharia} before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg. He further submits that distance between Durg to Kabirdham to Durg is 260 kms. to and fro and being mother of minor child, it would be difficult for the petitioner to travel such a long distance, rather one maintenance case is already pending against the respondent/husband at Family Court, Kabirdham, therefore, it would not be inconvenient to the respondent/husband, if aforesaid divorce petition is transferred from Family Court, Durg (C.G.) to Family Court, Kabeerdham, hence, it is prayed that this petition may be allowed and Civil Suit No. 78/2025 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) may be transferred to Family Court, Kairdham (C.G.). 3. Mr. Anand Nitin Jhari, respondent, appearing in person, opposes the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, appearing in person, and perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the fact that distance between Durg to Kabirdham is about 260 kms. to and fro; being mother of seven years minor child, it would be 3 difficult for her to travel from Durg to Kabirdham to attend the hearing of aforesaid civil suit. Further, one maintenance case bearing MJC Case No. 72 of 2024 {Suman Jharia Vs. Anand Nitin Jharia} is already pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kabeerdham, 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 application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. 78/2025 filed by him is transferred from Durg to Kabeerdham. 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. 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. 4 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. 78 / 2025 titled as ‘Anand Niteen Jhariya vs. Smt. Suman Jhariya” pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg is transferred to the Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham District Kabirdham within a period of 15 days. 10. It is made clear that the Judge, Family Court, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham shall expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously 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. Sd/- ( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.05 12:31:56 +0530 5