Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Mitali Sadhukhan vs Sri Amit Kumar Sadhukhan on 6 February, 2020
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
1 06.02.2020
Srimanta List - S/L Sl. No. 32 Ct. No. 17 C. O. 1883 of 2017 + CAN 5389 of 2018 Smt. Mitali Sadhukhan
-Vs.-
Sri Amit Kumar Sadhukhan Mr. Pallab Mohan Chakraborti, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Alok Roychowdhury, Adv., Mrs. Muhuya Dutta, Adv.
...for the opposite party.
The petitioner has prayed for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 62 of 2017 presently pending in the 4th Court of learned Additional District Judge at Barasat, North 24-Parganas to a Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Serampore, Hooghly. The only ground for transfer of the suit as advanced by the petitioner is that District Court at Barasat is situated at a considerable distance from Serampore and it will cause inconvenience to her to attend the said Court to contest the suit. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that she has no source of income. A competent Court passed an order of maintenance in favour of the petitioner against the opposite party but opposite party is not paying maintenance allowance to her regularly. It is, therefore, not possible for her to travel to Barasat to contest the suit from Serampore. Against the said application the parties have exchanged affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply.
Series of allegations and counter-allegations were made against the parties regarding the veracity and truthfulness of the other legal proceedings pending between the parties. This Court under the jurisdiction of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, has no authority to look into such 2 matters and such allegation and counter-allegation will surely be taken into consideration by the appropriate Courts at the time of hearing of such proceedings.
Only issue that falls for consideration in the instant case is as to whether the petitioner will really suffer inconvenience to contest the suit at Barasat from Serampore.
Serampore is situated at a distance of about 17 K.Ms. only from Barasat. The petitioner will have to travel 34 K.Ms. in both ways to contest the suit at Barasat. There is no allegation that Barasat Court has no jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act to entertain the matrimonial suit. I am of the view that the petitioner will not suffer any inconvenience if she is compensated by the cost of conveyance from Serampore to Barasat. In view of such circumstances, I am not unmindful to transfer the matrimonial suit from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court at Barasat. However, it is directed that the opposite party shall pay directly to the petitioner the cost of conveyance from Serampore to Barasat which is assessed at Rs. 400/- per day on each and every date of hearing of the suit. The instant revision is thus disposed of on contest.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)