Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Satyabrata Roy vs Madhusri Roy @ Das on 30 March, 2016
1 30.03. 2016 CO No.420 of 2016 Satyabrata Roy v.
Madhusri Roy @ Das Mr. Atarup Banerjee ... for the petitioner.
Ms. Trina Mitra ... for the opposite party.
In this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner has prayed for, transfer of the matrimonial suit filed by the opposite party claiming a declaration that her marriage with the petitioner is null and void and a nullity.
As directed by this Court the petitioner served a copy of this application on the opposite party. The parties have exchanged their respective affidavits and today this application is taken up for final hearing.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was never married to the opposite party. He is presently residing at Angul in the State of Odisha, where the opposite party was also residing due to her employment.
Mr. Atarup Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the pleadings of the respective parties in this application and submitted that the petitioner did not ever marry the opposite party and the opposite party has filed the matrimonial suit just to harass and malign the petitioner. He further submitted that he will face great hardship to contest the matrimonial suit filed by the 2 opposite party before the Court of the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri by travelling the long distance between Angul to Jalpaiguri, which is more than 1200 kilometers. He further submitted that if the petitioner is required to contest the matrimonial suit before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri the petitioner will have to take leave from his office at least for four days to attend the hearing of the matrimonial suit before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri on each occasion. Thus, according to Mr. Banerjee the balance of convenience and inconvenience wholly lies in favour of the petitioner for transfer of the matrimonial suit from the Court of the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri to Burdwan.
However, Ms. Trina Mitra, the learned advocate appearing for the opposite party placed the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the opposite party and submitted that the opposite party has no independent source of income and she is presently residing with her aged parents at Jalpaiguri. The opposite party has no one to accompany her to the Court of the learned District Judge, Burdwan covering a distance of more than 450 kilometers, each side, involving overnight train journey. Ms. Mitra further submitted that if the matrimonial suit is transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Burdwan the opposite party will face great hardship to proceed with the matrimonial suit as she has no friend or relative in the town of Burdwan. Ms. Mitra also produced a document signed by both the parties to this application before the police authorities at Angul where both the parties admitted to be married to each other.
Mr. Banerjee while giving his reply did not dispute the aforementioned document produced by Ms. Mitra. He, however, submitted that the petitioner was coerced to sign the said document produced by Ms. Mitra and the petitioner has also obtained stay of the criminal proceeding initiated against him by the opposite party under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also the rival contentions of both Mr. Banerjee and Ms. Mitra, learned counsel for the 3 respective parties. The petitioner could not dispute the case made out by the opposite party that she has no independent source of income and she is presently residing with her parents at Jalpaiguri. It is also the fact that if, the matrimonial suit is transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Burdwan as prayed for by the petitioner, the opposite party has to travel the long distance between Jalpaiguri and Burdwan after undertaking overnight train journey and she has no friend or relative at Burdwan. For all these grounds I am unable to convince myself to accept the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the matrimonial suit to the Court of the learned District Judge, Burdwan. However, the fact remains that the petitioner will suffer some inconvenience to take frequent leave from his office at Angul for the purpose of contesting the matrimonial suit before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri. Thus, it would be in the interest of both the parties if the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri is requested to dispose of the matrimonial suit within a period of five months from the date of filing of the written objection by the petitioner.
As submitted by Mr. Banerjee, let the petitioner, being the opposite party in the matrimonial suit, file his written objection in the matrimonial suit before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri positively within April 27,2016. As an exceptional case the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri is requested to assign the matrimonial suit to any Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Jalpaiguri, having determination to entertain the matrimonial suits for speedy disposal and to ensure that the matrimonial suit is disposed of within the time period mentioned above. The learned Court below is requested to hear the matrimonial suit on day to day basis without granting any unnecessary adjournment of the hearing of the suit on the prayer of either of the parties. Before parting with the matter, it is also made clear that this Court has not at all gone into the merits of the matrimonial suit.
With the above directions, CO No. 420 of 2016 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
4Certified 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.)