Smt. Purnima Nirmal v. Vikash Nirmal

Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate. Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate. {Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 19/06/2026 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 No. 1146 / 2023 (Vikas Nirmal Vs. Purnima Nirmal) pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) to the Family Court, Janjgir- Champa (C.G.).

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that marriage of the petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent / husband on 21.01.2022. After about 1 ½ years of the marriage, when a doctor detected the petitioner (wife) that she is having only one kidney, the respondent (husband) and his family suspected that she would be 2 unable to bear child, hence, they started quarreling with her, which compelled the petitioner/wife to reside along with her parents at Janjgir-Champa, thereafter, the respondent/ husband has filed divorce petition bearing Case No. 1146 / 23 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), which give rise to file instant transfer petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that the petitioner/wife resides at Janjgir-Champa alongwith her old aged parents; distance between Janjgir-Champa to Raipur is 171 kms, though there is direct train connectivity between aforesaid two places, but that fact remains that petitioner's father has passed away and her brother lives separately with his family; therefore, there is no male family member available to accompany the petitioner/wife to travel from Janjgir-Champa to Raipur, hence, he prays that divorce petition filed by the respondent / husband be transferred from the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to the Family Court, Janjgir-Champa.

4. Respondent / husband has filed his reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / husband while referring to its reply would submit that after filing of divorce petition by the respondent/husband, petitioner/wife herself has filed application under Section 12 read with Section 18, 19,20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur on 15.04.2024, thus, since the petitioner/wife herself has filed case at Raipur, hence, she may appear in divorce petition also, therefore, transfer petition be rejected.

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

6. Divorce petition filed by respondent/husband at Raipur (C.G.) is said to be far from the Janjgir-Champa i.e. about 171 kms, though there is directed train connectivity between these two places, but as contended by learned counsel for 3 the petitioner that petitioner’s father has already died and her brother resides separably alongwith his own family, therefore, it cannot be denied that that being female, it would be difficult for her travel such long distance.

7. Though the petitioner /wife has filed case under Domestic Violence Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, but during course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is intended to file transfer petition to transfer that case also, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, only on that ground, this transfer petition filed by the petitioner cannot be disallowed.

8. 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.”

9. 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

10. 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.

11. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Case No. 1146 / 2023 (Vikas Nirmal Vs. Purnima Nirmal) pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) be transferred to the Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa within a period of 15 days.

12. It is further directed that the Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa 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.

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

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