J^ 1 ^^ IN THE HIGH COJLrKTOF_JUD!CATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 ®, TRANSFER_P.ETITIQN_(C1 N0. .^-s> /2010 lfk^( Swt{ PETITIONER Non-applicant ,<*'-' •*>. f^.. .5^'S^ \^"' . ,. . ••^^^ •fi^ Radhika @ Pratibha Agrawal Aged- about 23 years, W/o Gopal Agrawal R/o C/o Pooranmal Gupta, Sihawa chowk, Osiya.Vihar Colony, Dhamatari, Distt.-Dhamatari [C.G.] VERSUS RESPONDENT Gopal Agrawal @ Rani S/o Sri Balkrishna Agrawal, Aged-about29 yrs. R/o Kamla Super Market, Telghani naka, Station chowk, Raipur [C.G.] PETITION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF CFVIL PROCEDURE "•-s % ''i*i ''" f ff aa^y -2-0 fflGH COURT OF CmiATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 8.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Transfer Petition (O No. 25/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Radhika @ Pratibha Agrawal Versiis Gopal Agrawal Appearanoe: Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for the petitioner. PETITION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE CODE OF dVIL PROCEDURE ORAL ORDER (10.11.2010) The instant petition under seetion 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for transfer of Civil Suit No. 591-A/10 pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur to the Court of Competent Jurisdiction at Dhamtari. (2) Leamed counsel for the petitioner would argue that respondent/husband was treating the petitioner with cruelty and she was harrased for which a report was lodged with the police, but it was not registered. He would farther submit that the petitioner is having one year old child who is living with her and therefore she has difficulties in attending each and every date ofhearing at Raipur. (3) Apart from this, there is no other ground for seeking transfer of the case from Raipur to Dhamtoi, though it is mentioned that the petitioner apprehends that whenever she will attend the hearing at •V1S l! JJ 2- .a- Raipur tiie respondent may threaten her and will assault the child also. (4) The distance between Dhamtari to Raipur is about 80 kms. It is connected by national highway. The petitioaer does not appear to be suffering fi-om any disease. (5) It is also not disclosed in the application as to whether other elderly persons are available in the house or not. In the opinion oftfais court the inconvenience projected is not ofsuch a nature which would warrant order for transfer ofthe case from Raipur to Dhamteri. (6) Looking to the short distance at which both the stations i.e. Raipur and Dhamtari are situated, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge