[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Deepkant Kashyap vs Rudra Kashayap (Minor) on 2 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:15325
NAFR
RAHUL
JHA
Digitally signed
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
by RAHUL JHA
Date: 2026.04.02
16:21:52 +0530
TPC No. 38 of 2026
Deepkant Kashyap S/o Shri Vyas Narayan Kashyap Aged About 36 Years
Occupation Government Service (Panchkarma Assistant), R/o 551/k
Lalbahadur Shastri Ward No. 08, Navagadh, P.S. And Tahsil Navagadh,
District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address - Kirodimal Govt. Zila
Hospital, Aaush Department, Raigarh, District Tahsil And District- Raigarh
(C.G.)
Appellant(s)
Versus
Rudra Kashayap (Minor) S/o Deepkant Kashyap Aged About 7 Years Through
His Guardian Mother Smt. Hemlata Kashyap W/o Deepkant Kashyap, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o 551/k Lalbahadur Shastri Ward No. 08, Navagadh, P.S.
And Tahsil- Navagadh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present Address
Mukund Road Khokhra, Near Swami Atmanand Hindi Medium School
Khokhra Janjgir P.S. And Tahsil- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
02/04/2026
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 by the petitioner/husband seeking transfer of
proceedings bearing Case No. 260/2025, instituted under Section 144 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pending before the
learned Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), to the
Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.).
2. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized
on 11.07.2016 in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Out of the
said wedlock, a male child was born, who is respondent herein
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to differences in
conduct and temperament, the parties could not continue their
matrimonial relationship and had earlier filed a petition under Section
13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Janjgir-
Champa, which was dismissed on 27.06.2022 upon withdrawal of
consent by the respondent/wife. It is further submitted that thereafter the
respondent/wife left the matrimonial home along with the minor child
and did not permit the petitioner to meet the child, compelling him to file
a custody application under Section 6 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890, which is presently pending before the Family Court, Raigarh. It is
also submitted that an earlier divorce petition filed by the
respondent/wife at Raigarh stood dismissed and an appeal thereagainst is
stated to be pending. Learned counsel further contends that the
respondent/wife, though residing and employed at Raigarh, has instituted
proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS before the Family Court,
Janjgir-Champa, and since both parties and the minor child are residing
at Raigarh, the proceedings deserve to be transferred to the Family
Court, Raigarh in the interest of justice and convenience.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that although the
respondent/minor child are presently residing at Raigarh with his
mother/legal guardian, as the mother is working at Raigarh temporarily,
the parents of the wife of the petitioner resides at Janjgir-Champa
permanently and the respondent/minor child and her mother are also
living with her parents ar Janjgir-Champa. Hence, the application under
Section 144 of the BNSS has been validly instituted before the Family
Court, Janjgir-Champa in accordance with law, and no ground is made
out for transfer of the proceedings.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. It is a settled principle of law that in matrimonial disputes, the
convenience of the wife is to be given due and predominant
consideration; however, the same is not an absolute rule and each case
must be decided on its own facts. In the present case, the proceedings
have been instituted by the respondent/wife before a competent court,
and no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the said
court lacks jurisdiction or that the proceedings are otherwise not
maintainable.
7. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that both parties are
residing at Raigarh and that proceedings relating to custody are also
pending before the Family Court, Raigarh. However, it is not in dispute
that the proceedings under Section 144 of the BNSS have been instituted
by the respondent before the competent court at Janjgir-Champa.
8. Merely because the petitioner finds it inconvenient to attend the
proceedings at Janjgir-Champa, or that some other proceedings are
pending at Raigarh, would not by itself constitute a sufficient ground for
transfer, particularly when the proceedings have been instituted in
accordance with law.
9. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must be satisfied that transfer is
necessary in the interest of justice. In the present case, no such
exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated by the petitioner
warranting transfer of the proceedings.
10. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent has filed the
proceedings with an intent to harass is bald and unsupported by any
cogent material.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
case for transfer is made out.
12. Accordingly, the present transfer petition being devoid of merits is
hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
JUDGE
Rahul
