Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Nitansha Gupta vs Shri Vikas Prasad Gupta on 7 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:39513
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
TPC No. 103 of 2025
1 - Smt. Nitansha Gupta W/o Vikas Prasad Gupta Aged About 26 Years D/o
Shri Vinay Sahu, Tehsil Chowk, Piyush Traders, Lormi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Shri Vikas Prasad Gupta S/o Shri Suresh Prasad Gupta Aged About 31
Years R/o Kailash Nagar, Birgaon, Raipur, P.S. Urla, Tehsil Dharsiva, Dist.
Raipur, C.G.
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate.
(Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
07.08.2025
Heard.
1. Petitioner/ wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth ‘CPC‘) for transfer of Civil Suit
No. 220 /2025 (Vikash Prasad Gupta vs. Nitansha Gupta)) pending before
Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to Family Court, Mungeli.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage
of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband on 11.10.2013
at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur. He submits that since the
2
respondent/husband was having extramarital affair, a dispute erupted
between the parties and the petitioner was compelled to live apart from her
husband, therefore, she is residing with her parents at Lormi along with her
seven-year-old daughter. He further submits that the petitioner/ wife has filed
an application under Section 144 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of maintenance
before the Family Court, Mungeli bearing M.J.C.(Cr.) No. 127/2025 against
the respondent/husband, in which, respondent/husband has entered his
appearance. He submits that respondent/husband has filed application under
Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing Civil Suit No. 220/25 for
restitution of conjugal rights before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur only
to harass the petitioner/wife. It is submitted that distance between Lormi,
District Mungeli to Raipur is about 270 kms. to and fro and , therefore, being
a lady, it would be difficult for petitioner to travel from Lormi, District Mungeli
to Raipur to attend the hearing of divorce case, therefore, it is prayed that
Civil Suit No. 220/25 filed by respondent/husband may be transferred from
Family Court, Raipur to Family Court, Mungeli.
3. Counsel for the respondent/husband while opposing the transfer
petitioner would submit that there is frequent bus facility between Raipur to
Mungeli, therefore, the petitioner may attend hearing in Raipur Court, hence,
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
5. The ground taken for the transfer of divorce case is that maintenance
case filed by the petitioner / wife in respect of both the parties is pending
consideration before Family Court, Mungeli, therefore, it would be convenient
for both the parties, if divorce case bearing Civil Suit No. 220/2025 filed by
3
respondent / husband before the Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur be
transferred to Family Court, Mungeli rather it would not cause any difficulty
for the husband, as he has to go in the hearing of maintenance case filed by
the petitioner/wife in the Family Court, Mungeli.
6. In the matter of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik (2022
SCC Online SC 1199), their Lordships of the Supreme Court has held 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.”
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sumita Singh -v- Kumar
Sanjay and another [(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 -v- Kishore Babulal
Pardeshi [(2005) 12 SCC 237] has observed that the convenience of wife is
to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.
4
8. Considering the fact situation of the case, which has been observed in
preceding paragraphs of his order and in light of the principles of law laid
down by the Apex Court in aforecited cases; it is a fit case for transfer of the
civil suit, as prayed for.
9. Consequently, the instant transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that
the Civil Suit No. 220 /2025 (Vikas Prasad Gupta vs. Nitansha Gupta)
pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur be
transferred to Family Court, Mungeli for its trial/ disposal in accordance with
law. Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur is directed to
transmit the record of the above case to the Family Court, Mungeli, within a
period of 15 days.
10. It is further directed that the Judge, Family Court, Mungeli shall
expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within
period of four months from the date of receipt of the record from transferring
Court.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
amit/-
Digitally signed
AMIT by AMIT
KUMAR DUBEY
KUMAR Date:
DUBEY 2025.08.08
17:26:38 +0530