The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that when multiple legal proceedings initiated by a wife are already pending at her place of residence, and the husband files retaliatory complaints elsewhere solely to inconvenience her, transfer of those proceedings is not merely discretionary but a matter of substantive justice. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural convenience and protection from harassment must outweigh territorial formalities in domestic disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Sarita Agrawal, and the respondent, Ghanshyam Agrawal, entered into a second marriage on 01.12.2021 in Durg, Chhattisgarh, under Hindu rites. After residing together in Raipur, the marriage deteriorated due to alleged physical and mental cruelty, unlawful dowry demands, and eventual forcible ejection of the petitioner from the matrimonial home on 04.04.2024. Since then, she has been residing in a rented accommodation in Durg, without financial or familial support.
Procedural History
The petitioner initiated multiple legal remedies in Durg:
- Civil Suit No. 434/2024: Filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights
- MJC Criminal No. 620/2024: Filed under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance
- Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act: Pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg
In response, the respondent filed two cases in Raipur:
- Criminal Complaint under Section 223 BNSS read with Sections 316 and 303 of BNS: Alleging unlawful retention of ornaments
- Misc. Criminal Case No. 422/2025 under Section 144 BNS: Seeking maintenance
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought transfer of both cases from Raipur to Durg, citing her financial hardship, medical condition, lack of support, and the respondent’s consistent attendance at proceedings in Durg without any inconvenience.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether multiple pending proceedings initiated by a wife at her place of residence, coupled with evidence of retaliatory litigation by the husband, justify transfer of subsequent complaints filed in a different jurisdiction under Section 223 BNSS and Section 144 BNS, in the interest of justice and to prevent harassment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel argued that:
- The petitioner is a permanent resident of Durg and has no means to travel 60 km round-trip for each hearing
- The marriage was solemnized in Durg, and all her legal remedies were initiated there
- The respondent, aware of these facts, deliberately filed cases in Raipur to harass and burden her
- The respondent has been regularly attending proceedings in Durg without default, proving no prejudice would arise from transfer
- The principle of natural justice and protection of vulnerable litigants under Article 21 demands transfer
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel opposed transfer, contending that:
- The respondent is a resident of Raipur and has the right to file complaints in his jurisdiction
- No statutory provision mandates transfer merely because other proceedings exist elsewhere
- The petitioner’s hardship is self-created and cannot override territorial jurisdiction
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the cumulative impact of the respondent’s conduct and the petitioner’s vulnerability. It emphasized that jurisdictional formalities must yield to the realities of domestic violence and procedural fairness.
"The respondent has not only filed a criminal complaint in a jurisdiction where the petitioner does not reside, but has done so after the petitioner had already instituted three proceedings in her place of residence, to which he has been regularly attending without any difficulty."
The Court distinguished this from ordinary civil disputes, noting that domestic violence cases involve power imbalances and systemic vulnerability. It held that the respondent’s conduct amounted to abuse of process, as he sought to exploit jurisdictional technicalities to impose undue hardship on a woman who had no support system.
The Court further observed that Section 223 BNSS and Section 144 BNS do not preclude transfer under inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, especially when transfer serves the ends of justice. The fact that the respondent had no objection to attending proceedings in Durg undermined his claim of prejudice.
The Court also noted the petitioner’s possession of video evidence of cruelty, reinforcing the gravity of her situation and the need for a forum where she can access justice without fear or financial strain.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that transfer of proceedings is mandatory when multiple cases initiated by a wife are pending at her residence, and the husband files retaliatory complaints elsewhere to harass her. The criminal complaint and maintenance petition were transferred from Raipur to Durg.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Transfer Is Not Optional in Domestic Violence Contexts
- Practitioners must now argue that repeated litigation in a non-resident jurisdiction by a spouse constitutes abuse of process
- Courts must treat such filings as prima facie evidence of harassment, triggering a presumption in favor of transfer
- The burden shifts to the respondent to prove why transfer would cause genuine hardship, not mere inconvenience
Multiple Pending Proceedings Create a Strong Presumption
- When three or more proceedings (under CrPC, DV Act, or HMA) are pending at the wife’s residence, transfer becomes the norm, not the exception
- Courts should not require proof of actual harassment - pattern of litigation alone suffices
- This applies even if the respondent is a resident of the forum where the complaint was filed
Convenience Overrides Territorial Formality
- Distance, financial constraints, and medical conditions of the petitioner are material factors, not secondary considerations
- The fact that the respondent attends proceedings in the petitioner’s jurisdiction without objection undermines any claim of prejudice
- Practitioners should routinely file affidavits detailing travel costs, medical reports, and attendance records in transfer petitions
