Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Anjali Chaturvedi vs Amit Pathak on 10 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11352
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
TPC No. 14 of 2026
signed by
AMARDEEP
AMARDEEP CHOUBEY
CHOUBEY Date:
2026.03.11
Smt. Anjali Chaturvedi W/o Amit Pathak Aged About 24 Years Through
11:13:25
+0530
D/o Ashok Chaturvedi, R/o House No. 169, Near Gupta Medical Raavan
Bhatha, Ward No. 06, Ramnagar Supela, Supela Bhilai, Tehsil And
District Durg (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
Amit Pathak S/o Late Ramu Pathak Aged About 27 Years R/o Mahadev
Nagar Ghuru, Ward No. 04, P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-tile taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 10/03/2026
1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking the transfer of case bearing H.M.A. No.733/2025, filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur to the learned Family Court Durg, District Durg, C.G.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 11.07.2024. With the passage of time, behavior of the respondent/husband towards the 2 petitioner/wife became change and the family members of the petitioner tried to manage the matrimonial life of the petitioner through social meeting, but the behavior of the respondent never changed. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violation Act before the CJM, Durg and also filed an application under Section 144 of BNSS before the Family Court Durg. Learned counsel further submits that it will be inconvenient for her to attend the proceedings of HMA No.733/2025, pending before the learned Family Court, Bilaspur on the scheduled dates of hearing. Such travel imposes severe hardship upon the petitioner, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer made in the petition. She submits that that the respondent would also suffer hardship and inconvenience in the event the case is transferred as prayed for by the petitioner, as he would be required to travel from Bilaspur to Durg to attend the proceedings on each date of hearing. Learned counsel further submitted that mere inconvenience cannot be a ground for allowing a transfer petition. In support of her contention, she placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das reported in 2006 9 SCC 197 and Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma reported in 2005 11 SCC 535.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.
5. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik 3 (2022 SCC Online SC 1199) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that generally it is wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"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.
10.Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions."
6. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid principles, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the petitioner.
7. Consequently, the Transfer Petition is allowed and it is ordered that case bearing HMA No. 733/2025 which is pending before the learned Family Court Bilaspur be transferred to the learned Family Court Durg, District:Durg, C.G. for its trial/disposal in accordance 4 with law.
8. Further, the respondent/husband would be at liberty to participate in the proceedings through video conferencing/virtually unless otherwise directed by the concerned Court.
9. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the learned Family Court Durg, District:Durg, C.G. on 08.04.2026.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep