Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Rajani Dadsena vs Pravin Dadsena on 21 January, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/3
2025:CGHC:3676
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
TPC No. 220 of 2024
• Smt. Rajani Dadsena W/o Pravin Dadsena, Aged About 33 Years Presently
Resident C/o Madhelal Jaiswal , Village Judga, Police Station And Tahsil
Sakti, Distict Sakti (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
• Pravin Dadsena S/o Jiwan Lal Dadsena Aged About 35 Years Occupation
Training Officer, Government I.T.I. Mana Raipur, R/o D/77, Phase -2, Wood
Eyeland, Amleshwar, District Durg (C.G.) Presently Address-E.W.S.175,
Behind of Bharatmata School, Tatibandh, Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
PAWAN
ORDER ON BOARD KUMAR
JHA
21/01/2025 Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
1. Petitioner (wife) has filed this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code
of Civil Procedure seeking prayer for transfer of Case No. 722/2024 (Praveen
Dadsena vs. Smt. Rajni Dadsena), pending before learned Principal Judge,
Family Court Durg, District Durg to the Family Court at Sakti, District Sakti
(C.G.).
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the marriage of petitioner and the
respondent was solemnized on 13.03.2021. After some time of marriage,
some dispute took place between them and both of them started residing
separately. Petitioner is residing in the house of her parents at village Judga,
P.S. Sakti. Initially, petitioner has filed an application under Section 125 of
CrPC seeking maintenance from the respondent, in the month of April 2024
2/3
which is pending consideration before the Family Court at Sakti. He next
contended that proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act,
2005 is also pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra
District Janjgir-Champa which is near to district Sakti. As two petitions are
pending at district Sakti, therefore the application filed by respondent under
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 be transferred to Family court at
Sakti.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent opposes the submission
of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner at present is
residing at Malhar, Bilaspur as she is working as Staff Nurse in Navodaya
Vidhyalaya, Malhar. He further contended that he is having no objection if the
case is transferred from Family Court, Durg to any other place, however, the
submission is that the case may be transferred to Family Court, Bilaspur
which will be convenient for both the sides.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
on record.
5. It is not in dispute that 03 cases are already pending between the parties, two
at Family Court, Dabhra, Janjgir-Champa and one at Family Court, Sakti.
Dabhra is nearer to Sakti which is also not in dispute.
6. Petitioner is a lady and convenience of the wife to attend the case is also one
of the considerations at the time of deciding transfer petition. Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of of N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, 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
3/3are 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 vs. Kumar Sanjay
and another, reported in (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 vs. Kishore
Babulal Pardeshi, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 has observed that the
convenience of wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband.
8. Petitioner is appearing for attending proceedings before the court at Sakti
District Sakti and the court at Dabhra District Janjgir-Champa. In the said
facts of the case, submission of learned counsel for respondent with regard
to transferring of the case at Family Court, Bilaspur is rejected.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the of law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit
case for transfer of the case as prayed for by petitioner/wife.
10. Accordingly, this transfer petition is allowed. It is ordered that Case No.
722/2024 (Praveen Dadsena vs. Smt. Rajni Dadsena), pending before
learned Principal Judge, Family Court Durg, District Durg be transferred to
Family Court, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.).
11. The Family Court, Durg, District Durg is directed to transfer the record of the
above case to the Family Court, Sakti forthwith. Parties are directed to
appear before the Family Court, Sakti on 18.02.2025.
12. The learned Family Court, Sakti will make all endevours to conclude the
proceedings of the case at the earliest subject to co-operation by the parties.
13. Registry of this Court is directed to send the copy of order to the Family
Court, Durg, District Durg.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
pwn JUDGE
[ad_1]
Source link