Smt. Anjali Chaturvedi vs Amit Pathak
2026 Latest Caselaw 276 Chatt

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 276 Chatt
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2026

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

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

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

(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

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