Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Manju Thawait vs Dr. Ravindra Kumar Thawait on 8 April, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
TPC No.28 of 2020
Order Reserved on : 15.02.2022
Order Delivered on : 08.04.2022
Smt. Manju Thawait, W/o Dr. Ravindra Thawait, D/o Shri Dashratlal
Mahobia, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Beside Mukund Bhawan, Near
Aata Chaki, Baijnatpara, Tahsil and District Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Ravindra Kumar Thawait, S/o Late Ram Thawait, Aged About 56
Years, R/o Near Santoshi Mandir, Shyam Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Petitioner Mr. A. K. Prasad, Advocate
For Respondent Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate
Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
1. This petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
has been preferred by the petitioner seeking transfer of divorce
case bearing Civil Suit No.685/2019 (Dr. Ravindra Thawait vs Smt.
Manju Thawait) pending before the Family Court, Raipur, District
Raipur to the Family Court, Durg, District Durg.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner was
solemnized with the respondent on 20.01.1991 at Durg (C.G.)
according to Hindu customs and rituals and out of their wedlock, two
daughters and one son were born. After sometime of marriage, the
petitioner wife was subjected to cruelty and harassment on several
occasions, but for the sake of children, the petitioner wife kept quiet
and compromised with the respondent husband and even then she
was driven out of the house and therefore she was compelled to live
in her paternal house at Durg. The petitioner was facing extreme
hardships, as she was not having any source of income, therefore,
she filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of
maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg on
23.06.2016, which was allowed vide order dated 30.04.2018 and
the respondent was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month to the
petitioner as maintenance, against which the respondent husband
filed CRMP No.1873/2018 before the High Court, which is pending
consideration. The respondent filed application under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Durg on
01.04.2017 for divorce, in which notice was issued to the petitioner
and the petitioner appeared and filed application under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which was allowed and Rs.5,000/-
was awarded to the petitioner as cost of the litigation. Thereafter the
matter was fixed for evidence, but the respondent husband did not
appear before the Court on three occasions. Lastly, on 11.03.2019,
the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, but no
restoration application was filed. Thereafter, on 19.07.2019, second
divorce petition was again filed by the respondent husband before
the Family Court, Raipur concealing the fact that earlier the divorce
petition was filed before the Family Court, Durg. Presently, the
respondent husband is residing at Raipur, whereas the petitioner
wife is residing at Durg and the petitioner, being a lady, has to
attend the court proceedings regularly at Raipur, which is approx 40
kms from Durg, therefore, the present petition has been filed
seeking transfer of civil suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wife is
residing at Durg (C.G.) and the proceedings of divorce petition are
going on in Family Court, Raipur, for which the petitioner wife has to
attend the court proceedings. The distance between Raipur to Durg
is approx 40 kms and the petitioner, being a lady, it is very difficult
for her to travel 40 kms to attend the court proceedings at Family
Court, Raipur. He further submits that it is settled position of law that
the convenience of wife is relevant factor over the convenience of
the husband. Therefore, the divorce case bearing Civil Suit
No.685/2019 pending before the Family Court, Raipur may kindly be
transferred to the Family Court, Durg. He has placed reliance on the
judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna
Veni Nagam vs Harish Nagam1.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent husband
opposes the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
submissions and perused the material available on record.
6. Admittedly, the distance between Raipur to Durg is approx 40 kms.
The petitioner, being a lady, it would be highly inconvenient for her
to travel alone from Durg to Raipur and vice versa especially in
evening after attending the court proceedings, whereas other cases
between the parties are already pending at Durg.
7. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rajani Kishore Pardeshi Vs.
Kishor Babulal Pardeshi2 has observed that the convenience of
wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.
1 (2017) 4 SCC 150
2 (2005) 12 SCC 23
Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh Vs.
Kumar Sanjay and another3 has observed that if husband files suit
against wife, then convenience of wife must be looked into.
8. Thus, having ascertained the legal position and keeping in view the
law laid down in the aforesaid cases, particularly keeping in view
that distance between Durg to Raipur is approx 40 kms, the instant
transfer petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. It is directed
that the divorce case bearing Civil Suit No.685/2019 (Dr. Ravindra
Kumar Thawait Vs. Smt. Manju Thawait) filed by respondent
husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before
the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) is hereby withdrawn from the said
Court and the same is transferred to the Family Court, Durg, District
Durg for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The
concerned Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to transmit the
record of the above said case to the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Durg, District Durg (C.G.).
9. Both the parties shall appear before the Family Court, Durg on
27.06.2022. No order as to costs
Sd/-
Rajani Dubey
Judge
Nirala
3 (2001) 10 SCC 41
