Satish Singh Keshriya v. Smt. Priyanka
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31587 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 94 of 2025 1 - Smt. Priyanka Keshriya W/o Shri Satish Singh Keshriya Aged About 50 Years R/o Ramnagar New Morning Star School Kanker Thana And Tahsil Kanker Distt - North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus
Legal Reasoning
1 - Satish Singh Keshriya S/o Shri Adhin Singh Keshriya Aged About 54 Years Near Sharda Dairy Farm Shivpara Tahsil Durg Distt. - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant For Respondent : : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. The Applicant/wife has filed the instant petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’), 1908 for transfer of Civil Suit No.HMA/1162/2024 (Satish Singh Keshriya versus Smt. Priyanka 2 Keshriya) pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) to the learned Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (CG). 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/wife would submit that marriage of applicant/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 13.2.2005 as per the Hindu customs and rituals. They have been blessed with a male child, who is at present aged about 18 years. He would also submit that applicant is working as a Teacher in the New Morning Star School at Kanker and Respondent is working as the Lab Assistant in District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. He would further submit that due to harassment meted out to the applicant/wife by the respondent/ husband, applicant is living separately with her parents at Kanker (C.G.). He would next submit that respondent / husband has filed divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. HMA/1162/2024 before the Family Court, Durg and the distance between Durg to Kanker is about 120 km and applicant being a lady, it would be difficult for her to travel such a long distance to participate in the proceedings, therefore, it is prayed that present petition may be allowed and the divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No. HMA/1162/2024 may be transferred from the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) to the learned Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (CG). 3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that though the distance between Durg to Kanker is about 120 kms, there is direct bus connectivity and applicant/ wife is a well educated lady, therefore, it would not be difficult for her to travel and she can appear through video conferencing also in the Family Court, Durg (CG). He would further submit that in many hearing applicant/ wife has 3 marked her appearance before the Family Court, Durg (CG), as such, there is no sufficient cause to transfer the divorce the petition, hence, the present petition is liable to be rejected. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. 5. In the instant case, the only cause shown by the applicant/ wife to transfer the divorce petition from Durg Court to Kanker Court is distance of 240 kms to and fro, except that, no other reason has been shown by the applicant/wife, however, it is a trite law that in matrimonial dispute convenience of wife ought to have been seen. 6. In this regard, the 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. Similarly, the 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. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 held at para 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 4 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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed in preceding paragraphs and also considering the aforesaid case laws, wherein it has been observed that, in transfer of matrimonial cases, the wife’s convenience must be looked into, I feel inclined to allow the present petition for transfer of civil suit. 9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No.HMA/1162/2024 (Satish Singh Keshriya versus Smt. Priyanka Keshriya) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) be transferred to the Family Court, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 10. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (CG) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid Civil Suit No.HMA/1162/2024 to the Family Court Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (CG), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt/submission of a 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 period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from the transferring Court. 11. Both the parties are also directed to cooperate with the Family Court, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) in expeditious disposal of the case. It 5 is further observed that if personal presence of respondent / husband is not required then he may be permitted to appear through video conferencing before the Family Court, Kanker.
Decision
12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs. SD/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Ayushi