Smt. Deepti Sharma v. Prakash Kumar Sharma

: Mr. Ravi Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashok Kr. Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shashikesh Yadav, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board

24.06.2026

#1. The petitioner/wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No.162A/2025 (Prakash Kumar Sharma vs. Deepti Sharma) pending before Family Court, Manendragarh Distt. MCB (CG) to Family Court Surajpur (CG).

#2. Fact of the case, in brief are that, marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 11.12.2020 according to the Hindu rituals and customs. After few months of the marriage, due to mental and physical torture committed by the respondent/ husband to the petitioner/wife, she left his company 2 and is residing in Surajpur. The petitioner has filed divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.A/112/2025 before Family Court Surajpur. Thereafter the respondent/husband has filed application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, before Family Court, Manendragarh Distt. MCB bearing Civil Suit No.162A/2025, which has been sought to be transferred by the petitioner.

#3. Learned counsel further submits that apart from the divorce case filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, Surajpur, she has also filed application under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 for maintenance, i.e. Misc. Criminal Case No.225/2025 and application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, i.e. MJC Criminal/5897/2025, which are pending before the competent Courts at Surajpur. It is further submitted that in all the above three cases, the respondent/husband has entered his appearance before the Courts of Surajpur, therefore, if the civil suit filed by the respondent is transferred from Family Court, Manendragarh to Family Court Surajpur, it would be convenient for not only for the petitioner/wife, but also to the respondent/husband, as he can appear in all these cases in the Court of Surajpur. He further submits that to and fro distance between Surajpur and Manendragarh is about 200 km, and since the petitioner is residing in Surajpur, it would be difficult for her to travel such distance to attend the Court proceedings at Manendragarh. He further submits that it is settled law that the convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband. Hence, it is prayed that present transfer petition may be allowed and the petition bearing Civil Suit No.162A/2025 (Prakash Kumar Sharma vs. Deepti Sharma) pending before Family Court, Manendragarh Distt. MCB (CG) be transferred to Family Court Surajpur (CG).

#4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submission made on behalf the petitioner and submits that though to and for distance between aforesaid two places is 200 Km, but there is direct bus connectivity between these places, hence, it would not be difficult for the petitioner to attend the Court proceedings in 3 the Court of Manendragarh. Therefore, it is prayed that this transfer petition may be rejected.

#5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

#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 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.

#8. As per the petitioner, three cases, i.e. Civil Suit No.A/112/2025 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act; Misc. Criminal Case No.225/2025 under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, i.e. MJC Criminal/5897/2025 are already pending against the respondent/husband before the Courts of Surajpur and he has to attend that proceeding, hence, it would be convenient for the respondent/husband also if 4 the Civil Suit No.162A/2025 (Prakash Kumar Sharma vs. Deepti Sharma) pending before Family Court, Manendragarh Distt. MCB (CG) is transferred to Family Court Surajpur (CG).

#9. Considering the fact situation of the case and also 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. Accordingly, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Civil Suit No.162A/2025 (Prakash Kumar Sharma vs. Deepti Sharma) pending before Family Court, Manendragarh Distt. MCB (CG) be transferred to Family Court Surajpur (CG) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Judge, Family Court, Manedragarh Distt. MCB, is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur , within a period of 15 days.

#11. Further, the Judge, Family Court, Surajpur is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring Court. The parties are also directed to cooperate with the concerned Family Court for early disposal of the case. If the personal appearance of the respondent is required, he may be permitted to appear through Video Conferencing.

#12. In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Bini