Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Dipa Dhar( De Sarkar) vs Sourav Dhar on 4 May, 2016
1 04.05. 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELATE SIDE CO 728 of 2016 Dipa Dhar( De Sarkar) v.
Sourav Dhar Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee ... for the petitioner.
Mr. Sadhan Roychowdhury Mr. M. Mitra ... for the opposite party.
In this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner-wife has prayed for, transfer of the matrimonial suit filed by the opposite party-husband and pending before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Serampore to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Asansol.
On March 29,2016 when this application was taken up for hearing, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on October 9, 2015 the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol passed an order in Misc. Case No.150 of 2015 directing the opposite party to pay the maintenance allowance of Rs.10,000/-, per month to the petitioner from April 18,2015. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the said order dated October 9,2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol the opposite party was not paying any maintenance amount to the petitioner. The other ground which was urged on behalf of the petitioner before this Court, was the long distance between the present residence of the petitioner at Asansol and the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Serampore for which the petitioner is facing difficulty to contest the matrimonial suit.
2Today, this application is taken up for hearing after completion of the pleadings of both the parties. Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was a mistake on the part of the petitioner to mention in the petition that she received the writ of summons of the matrimonial suit in December 2015 but, in fact, she received the writ of summons of the matrimonial suit in March 2015 which would be evident from the copy of the writ of summons together with the copy of the plaint annexed to the petition. The principal ground urged on behalf of the petitioner for transfer of the matrimonial suit, as prayed for in this petition is the long distance between Asansol and the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Serampore.
However, Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party strenuously contended that the averment made by the petitioner in her application that she was not receiving any maintenance from the opposite party is absolutely untrue. By referring to the receipts issued by the petitioner herself, which are annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the opposite party, he submitted out that the opposite party is regularly paying the maintenance to the petitioner as directed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol. He further submitted that as per the practice between the parties, the opposite party is paying the maintenance amount, both for the current month and arrear for Rs.11,000/-, per month to the petitioner with the gap of three months, that is, on the date fixed for hearing of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol. He further referred to the order sheet of the matrimonial suit and submitted that the petitioner was appearing before the learned Additional District Judge, Serampore and from time to time she prayed for adjournment of the hearing of the said matrimonial suit. According to Mr. Roychowdhury, the petitioner has made various false statements in this application and as such she is not entitled to obtain any relief in this application and the application shall be dismissed.
3In the affidavit-in-reply the petitioner has admitted the mistake committed by her that she received writ of summons of the matrimonial suit on December 2015. She also admitted the fact that the statement made by her in the application that she has not received any maintenance from the opposite party is also not correct and the opposite party is paying the maintenance amount of Rs.11,000/- per month only after three months.
I have considered the facts of the case and the materials on record. Although, it was contended on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party is paying the monthly maintenance amount in terms of the said order dated October 9,2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol but the same does not appear to be correct. From a reading of the order dated October 9,2015 it is clear beyond any doubt that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol directed the opposite party to pay the current maintenance together with the arrear maintenance amounting to Rs.11,000/- within the 15th day of every succeeding month, whereas, the opposite party is paying the maintenance to the petitioner with the gap of three months. This does not appear to be compliance of the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Asansol. Be that as it may considering the distance between the present residence of the petitioner at Asansol and the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Serampore and when the opposite party himself admitted the long distance between Asansol and Serampore, I am of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-served to both the parties if the matrimonial suit is transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Burdwan.
Accordingly, the Matrimonial Suit No. 298/245 of 2015 ( Sri Sourav Dhar v. Smt. Dipa Dhar) is withdrawn from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Serampore and the same is transferred dto the Court of the learned District Judge, Burdwan.
4The learned District Judge, Hooghly is directed to forthwith transmit all the records of the Matrimonial Suit No. 298/245 of 2015 ( Sri Sourav Dhar v. Smt. Dipa Dhar) to the Court of the learned District Judge, Burdwan. It is made clear that the learned District Judge, Burdwan may assign the matrimonial suit to the Court of any learned Additional District Judge at Burdwan having determination to entertain the matrimonial suit.
With the above direction CO 728 of 2016 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)