Suryakant Soni v. Smt. Gayatri
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:9070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 226 of 2024 • Gayatri Soni, W/o Suryakant Soni, Aged About 29 Years, Recent Address Chirmiri (Godaripara), P.S. & Tahsil Chirmiri, District Manendragarh, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner • Suryakant Soni, S/o Late Ajay Kumar Soni, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Urdana Police Line, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order On Board 21/02/2025 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.F-182A/2024 (Suryakant Soni Versus Smt. Gayatri @ Goldy Soni) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) to the Principal Judge, Family Court Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). 1. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 23.11.2019 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. After marriage they lived together for about 1 year and they have blessed with a girl child aged about 3 years at present. Thereafter, 2 respondent/husband started harassing petitioner/wife physically & mentally, as such, she has been compelled to live apart at her parental place with her old aged mother at Chirmiri, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). She further submitted that petitioner has filed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the respondent before the Family Court, Manendragarh (C.G.), pending consideration, but respondent has filed the divorce petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) bearing Civil Suit No.F-182A/2024. It is further submitted that distance between Manendragarh and Raigarh is about 253 Kms and being a mother of minor child, it would be difficult for petitioner to travel from Manendragarh to Raigarh. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the divorce case may be transferred from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) to the Principal Judge, Family Court Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.). Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that respondent/husband is a constable, posted at Raigarh, therefore, if, aforesaid civil suit is transferred from Raigarh to Bilaspur, then it would be convenient for both the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully. Petitioner/wife is said to be a mother of minor child aged about 3 years and the distance between Manendragarh and Raigarh is said to be about 253 kms, therefore, ofcourse, it would be difficult for the petitioner to travel such a long distance along with her minor child. On the other hand, since one case for grant of maintenance is already pending before the Family Court Manendragarh, in which, respondent has to go to attend the hearing at Manendragarh, therefore, it would be convenient for respondent also, if civil suit is transferred from Raigarh to Manendragarh. 4. 5. 6. 3 7. 8. Contention of learned counsel for the respondent that transfer the case from Raigarh to Bilaspur is not found to be appropriate, as even, in that view of matter difficulty of petitioner/wife will not be solved. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 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.” 9. 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. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, 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. 4 11. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that the Civil Suit No.F-182A/2024 (Suryakant Soni Versus Smt. Gayatri @ Goldy Soni) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) be transferred to the Principal Judge, Family Court Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for its trial/disposal in accordance with law. 12. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid divorce petition bearing Civil Suit No.F-182A/2024 to the Principal Judge, Family Court Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (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. 13. In view of above order, pending interim application(s), if any, stands disposed
Decision
of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA NIRALA Date: 2025.02.22 12:45:24 +0530