Nisha Patel v. Ramkrishna Patel

Order On Board 09/10/2026

¶1Petitioner /wife has preferred this transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (henceforth 'CPC') for transfer of Civil Suit No. 53-A/2023 (Ramkrishna Patel vs. Nisha Patel) pending before Judge, Family Court, Korba (C.G.) to the learned Family Court, Raipur (C.G.)

¶2Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that marriage of petitioner/wife was solemnized with the respondent/husband AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.10.16 +0530 on 24.04.2008 at Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) as per Hindu rites and rituals and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with two children. He submits the petitioner/wife has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance against the respondent /husband, in which, he entered his appearance. He submits that the respondent /husband has filed an application under Section 13 (1) (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking a decree of divorce against the petitioner/wife before Family Court, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) and the distance between Korba to Raipur is 210 kms. He further submits that the petitioner/wife resides at Raipur alongwith her two children, therefore, being a lady, it would be difficult for her to come to Korba to attend the hearing of the aforesaid case, therefore, he prayed that Civil Suit No. 53-A/2023 (Ramkrishna Patel vs. Nisha Patel) pending before Judge, Family Court, Korba (C.G.) may be transferred to the learned Family Court, Raipur (C.G.). In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 237, and NCV Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 627.

¶3Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and submits that no justifiable or cogent ground has been shown warranting transfer of the case, therefore, he prays that the present petition may be dismissed.

¶4Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶5From the perusal of records, it reveals that since presently the petitioner/ wife is residing at Raipur alogwith her two minor children and the distance between Raipur to Korba is about 420 kms. up & down, therefore, of-course, it would be difficult for her to come to Korba from Raipur to attend hearing of the said civil suit.

¶6In 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."

¶7Hon'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.

¶8Considering the facts situation of the case, which has been observed in preceding paragraphs of this 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.

¶9Accordingly, this petition is allowed. It is directed that the Civil Suit No. 53-A/2023 (Ramkrishna Patel vs. Nisha Patel) filed by the respondent/husbnd under Section 13 (1) (I-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act which is pending before the Judge, Family Court Korba be transferred to Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) for its trial/ disposal in accordance with law. Parties are now directed to appear before the Family Court, Raipur on 08.12.2026. In case respondent-husband fails to appear at Family Court, Raipur on that day, learned Judge presiding over the said Court may issue notice to him for a date to be fixed by it. It is also observed that learned Family Court, Raipur shall fix the same date on which, the other proceeding is fixed for hearing for convenience of the parties as far as possible. The Judge, Family Court, Korba is directed to transmit the record of the above case to the court of Judge, Family Court, Raipur within a period of 15 days.

¶10In view of above order, pending interim application, if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput )

Judge ami

CGHC010319972026 2026:CGHC:43865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR TPC No. 149 of 2026 Nisha Patel W/o Ramkrishna Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Karainara, P.S. Urga, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh Current Address R/o M I G 636, Sector 1, D D U Nagar, Goal Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Ramkrishna Patel S/o Daya Prasad Patel Aged About 47 Years R/o Karainara, Tehsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh Mo. No. 9827943577 ... Respondent {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Modi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput