Smt. Durga Sahu v. Manohar Sahu

Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadu, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 29/07/2026 Heard.

1. Petitioner /wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, “CPC, 1908”) for transfer of case bearing Civil Suit No. 15-A/2026 (Manohar Sahu Vs. Smt. Durga Sahul) pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) to the Family Court, Balod, District Baold (C.G.).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 27.04.2009 as per Hindu rites and rituals. They have been blessed with two minor children, aged about 15 years & 13 years, respectively. After some time of marriage, relation of husband & wife become sour, therefore, the respondent/husband refused to keep the petitioner/wife with him, hence, she is residing alongwith her 2 parents since 16.9.2025. Thereafter, respondent/husband has filed divorce petition bearing Case Civil Suit No. 15-A/2026 before the Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar, Kanker, which has sought to be transferred to Family Court, Balod, District Balod. He submits that the petitioner/wife also filed an application seeking maintenance from the respondent /husband before the Family Court, Balod, District Balod bearing Case No. 67 /2026 and she has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the same Court i.e. Family Court, Balod bearing Case No. A25/2026. It is further submitted since two cases filed by the petitioner/wife against the respondent / husband are pending before the Family Court, Balod, therefore, it would not be inconvenient for the respondent / husband to attend the court proceeding at Balod, if the civil suit No. 15-A/2026 filed by him is transferred from Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker to the Family Court, Balod and the distance between these two places is 160 kms to and fro, therefore, it would not be inconvenient for the respondent / husband to attend the court proceeding at Korba, District Korba, if the civil suit filed by him under Section 13 (1) ofof Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce is transferred from Family Court, Family Court, Kankar, District North Bastar Kanker to the Family Court, Balod.

3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent/husband would submit from wedlock of petitioner & respondent, they have been blessed with two children, aged about 15 years 13 years, respectively, who are residing with respondent / husband. He further submits that the petitioner /wife is educated lady, therefore, she can travel between aforesaid two places, hence, the transfer petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. The distance between aforesaid two places is said to be 160 kms. to and fro and one maintenance case bearing Case No. 67 /2026 and one another 3 case under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 case bearing Case No. A25/2026 filed by the petitioner /wife are already pending against the respondent / husband before the Family Court, Balod, therefore, if Civil Suit No. 15-A/2026 (Manohar Sahu Vs. Smt. Durga Sahu) pending before Family Court, District North Bastar Kanker is transferred to the Family Court, Balod. then it would not cause any difficulty to the respondent/husband, as otherwise also he has come to attend hearing of the maintenance case & another case filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 filed by the petitioner/wife at Family Court, Balod, District Balod.

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 fact situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of this 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 Civil Suit No. 15-A/2026 (Manohar Sahu Vs. Smt. Durga Sahul) pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court, Balod, District Baold (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanker District North Bastar Kanker is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Family Court, Balod within a period of 15 days.

10. It is further directed that the Judge, Family Court, Balod shall expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. If personal presence of respondent / husband is not required, then the Judge, Family Court, Balod is directed to allow him to appear before the court through video conferencing.

11. It is made clear that both the parties shall cooperate with the Family Court for expeditious disposal of the case.

12. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge