Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Pinki Ghosh vs Sri Abhijit Dutta on 20 March, 2023
20.3.2023 10 Ct. no. 652 sb C.O. 3300 of 2022 Smt. Pinki Ghosh Vs. Sri Abhijit Dutta Mr. Dipankar Mandal Mr. Abdul Aziz Mondal ...for the petitioner Mr. Debasish Kar ...for the Opposite party This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of the Matrimonial suit no. 1649 of 2022, presently pending before the court of learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barrackpore, North 24 parganas to the court of learned Additional District Judge, Kalyani, Nadia.
The petitioner contended that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 17.3.2019 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. The petitioner alleged that some days after marriage, she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband and his family members and due to inhuman torture inflicted upon her, the petitioner had to left her matrimonial home on 31.10.2020 and since then she is residing at her father's house at Chakdah, Nadia. She has also stated that all her endeavour to have conjugal life with her husband failed. She further contended that she has no income of her own and she is dependent upon her 2 father and she has initiated a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani, Nadia. The petitioner further contended that she had also lodged a criminal proceeding under Section 498A/323/324/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code at Barrackpore Police Station and as a counter blast, the opposite party filed aforesaid suit for dissolution of marriage, which is now pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barrackpore, North 24 parganas. The petitioner's present residence situates at a distance of 55 kilometres from the Barrackpore court and she has to travel about 14 kilometres by bus/auto rickshaw by paying Rs. 30/- in order to reach Chakdah Railway Station and thereafter she has to travel 41 kilometres by train by paying about a sum of Rs. 10/- to attend the said court at Barrackpore and thereby she has to incur travelling expenditure of about Rs. 80/- per day and she is facing lot of inconveniences in attending and conducting the said proceeding at Barrackpore court though she is eager to contest the said suit. she further alleged that the opposite party is an employee in the office of Block Development Office, at Kalyani, which is situated within the territorial jurisiction of the learned Additional District Judge's court at Kalyani and if the prayer for transfer is allowed, the opposite party will not face any 3 inconvenience as he would be required to attend his office at Kalyani regularly. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought for aforesaid transfer.
The opposite party raised vehement objection against the said prayer contending that the distance in between the two places is not 55 kilometres but only 17 kilometres and it is not at all impossible for the petitioner to travel the said distance. The case should not be transferred at the request of a wife merely because she is a woman. Furthermore, she has lodged a criminal case which is pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore where she would be required to attend as witness. He further alleged that the family members of the petitioner are dangerous and desperate in nature and he might be harrassed and/or assaulted by the petitioner if he is directed to attend the said proceeding at Kalyani court.
Considered the submissions made by both the parties. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears from the averments made by the petitioner that the opposite party is an employee of Block Development Office at Kalyani and as such he would be required to attend his office at Kalyani and such fact has not been opposed by opposite party. Mere apprehension that he would be harassed, in case, the proceeding is transferred to the court of Kalyani, is not sufficient to observe that the prayer made by the petitioner is 4 motivated. On the contrary, this is husband's suit seeking dissolution of marriage and as such the convenience of the petitioner must be looked at. It may be true that distance alone may not be decisive factor but it has it's own role while considering the convenience of the parties, particularly, a wife. Court should focus on the convenience rather than redressal or mitigating against inconvenience. Furthermore, the inconvenience caused to the petitioner/wife in travelling to another station for pursing her matrimonial suit in the socio economic situation prevailing in the country is much more than the inconvenience that might be caused to the opposite party. Further case of the petitioner is that she is unemployed lady and she is not getting any amount of maintenance from the opposite party for which she is not in a position to bear the travelling and other expenses. Considering all these, I find that this is a fit case where the prayer for transfer made by the petitioner is allowed.
Learned District Judge, North 24 parganas, at Barasat is hereby directed to withdraw the Matrimonial suit being no. 1649 of 2022, presently pending before the court of learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barrackpore, North 24 parganas and to transmit the same to the court of learned District Judge, Krishnanagar at Nadia within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order who will in tern transmit the same to the court of learned Additional 5 District Judge, Kalyani having jurisdiction to try the suit, within a period of three weeks thereafter.
The transferee court shall serve fresh notice upon both the parties intimating the next date of hearing before proceeding further with the aforesaid suit and learned transferee court will continue the proceeding at the stage where it reached till date.
The department is directed to send a copy of the order to the learned District Judge, North 24 parganas, Barasat and learned District Judge, Krishnanagar, Nadia immediately.
Accordingly, C.O. 3300 of 2022 is disposed of. The parties will be at liberty to make prayer before the transferee court for consolidation of dates with the other proceedings and the transferee court is also directed to make expeditious disposal of the suit and to conclude the entire proceeding preferably within a period of ten months from the date of communication of the order.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)