Vikash Prasad Gupta v. Smt. Neelam Gupta) pending before the Family Court, Korba (Link Court, Katghora)
Case Details
Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.04.24 17:34:44 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:18205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 73 of 2024 • Smt. Neelam Gupta, W/o Vikas Prasad Gupta, Aged About 25 Years, (now aged about 30 years), R/o Kapukhurd, Police Station Kapu, Post Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
• Vikash Prasad Gupta, S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Indira Nagar, Mohan Talkies Road, Jamnipali, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate. : None, though served. 1. 2. 3. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 22/04/2025 Heard. The petitioner/wife has filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) for transfer of divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.06-A/2020 (Vikash Prasad Gupta Versus Smt. Neelam Gupta) pending before the Family Court, Korba (Link Court, Katghora) to the Family Court Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 04.12.2014 as per the social rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, a girl child was born. After two years of marriage, husband and inlaws of the petitioner started torturing her mentally and physically for demand of dowry. In the month of February, 2 2020, they ousted the petitioner from her noncriminal house. The respondent husband filed instant divorce petition before the Family Court, Korba (Link Court, Katghora). The petitioner is residing along with her daughter at Kapukhurd, District Raigarh (C.G.), which is nearer to the Ambikapur. The distance between Korba and Kapukhuru, where petitioner resides, is more than 200 Kms and being a mother of minor girl child, it is very difficult for her to travel such a long distance. It is further submitted that criminal case under Section 498-A of IPC bearing Criminal Case No.311/2022 is pending before the JMFC Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the divorce case may be transferred from the Family Court, Korba (Link Court, Katghora) to the Family Court Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). Though, notice has been served on the respondent, but no representation is made on his behalf. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record carefully. The petitioner has taken ground for transfer of divorce petition that she resides at Kapukhurd along with her girl child aged about 8 years at present, which is nearer to Ambikapur, one case under Section 498-A of IPC filed by the petitioner bearing Criminal Case No.311/2022 is pending before the JMFC Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) and the distance between Kapukhurd and Korba, is 200 Kms and it will be difficult for the petitioner to travel 400 Kms (‘to and fro’) to attend the Court proceedings at Korba. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady residing along with her minor girl child, it would be difficult for her to travel 400 Kms to and fro to attend the Court proceedings at Korba. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, it would be difficult for the 4. 5. 6. 3 petitioner to travel such a long distance to attend the court proceeding. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at paras 9 which reads 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.” 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Versus Kumar Sanjay and another reported in (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 Versus Kishore Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 has observed that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and also considering the distance between aforesaid two places and further considering the aforecited case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife's convenience must be looked into, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for transfer of the civil suit, as prayed for. 10. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the 4 Civil Suit No.06-A/2020 (Vikash Prasad Gupta Versus Smt. Neelam Gupta) pending before the Family Court, Korba (Link Court, Katghora) be transferred to the Family Court Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 11. The Family Court, Korba (Link Court, Katghora) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.06-A/2020 to the Family Court Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of copy of this order. It is further observed that after receiving the case on transfer, the transferred Court is directed to consider and decide the case as early as possible, preferably within a further period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferring Court. 12. In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed
Decision
of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravans Judge Pathak/-