Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Soumen Menon vs Smt. Nibedita Mukherjee (Menon) on 19 December, 2019
Author: Bibek Chaudhuri
Bench: Bibek Chaudhuri
1 19.12.19
Srimanta List - S/L Sl. No. 27 Ct. No. 17 C. O. 2507 of 2019 Sri Soumen Menon
-Vs.-
Smt. Nibedita Mukherjee (Menon) Mr. Sanjib Seth, Adv.
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Abhijit Ray, Adv.
...for the opposite party.
In the instant proceeding under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Matrimonial Suit No. 30 of 2017 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Barasat filed by the petitioner is sought to be transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah.
For proper appraisal of the dispute leading to filing of the instant application, it is necessary to record the following facts as background. The petitioner filed the matrimonial suit initially before the learned District Judge at Howrah praying for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce against the opposite party herein. The opposite party as petitioner subsequently filed an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as C.O. 2106 of 2016 praying for transfer of the said suit from the Court of the learned District Judge, Howrah to the Court of the learned District Judge, North 24-Parganas at Barasat. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said application ex parte and the suit was accordingly transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, North 24-Parganas at Barasat. After transfer of the said suit it was renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No. 30 of 2017.
2So far as the transfer of the said matrimonial suit is concerned, this is second round of litigation. Now, the husband/petitioner who instituted the suit has come up with an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of the said suit from the 5th Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Barasat to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah.
It is alleged by the petitioner that on 19th June, 2019 the petitioner went to Barasat Court to take step in the said suit filed by him. When he was proceeding towards Barasat Railway Station from Court premises, he was surrounded by some unknown persons, they threatened the petitioner to withdraw the said suit. They also threatened with adverse consequence if he tries to attend Barasat Court in future. The petitioner was afraid of such situation and lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-Charge, Barasat Police Station by post. However, Police did not take any action upon his written complaint. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that it is not possible for the petitioner to conduct his suit freely at Barasat after being threatened by some unknown persons appearing to be the henchmen of the opposite party. It is also pointed out by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that in C.O. No. 2106 of 2016 as per the order of the Court the petitioner prepared affidavit-in-opposition supplied the copy of the same to the learned Advocate for the opposite party. Opposite party also prepared affidavit-in-reply and such affidavit was also exchanged. However, on the date of hearing of the application, learned Advocate for the petitioner was not present in Court due to his illness. He requested his colleague to pray for adjournment but as he was busy in another matter, he could not attend at proper time to pray for adjournment. On such background, the ex parte order was passed upon the earlier application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the wife/opposite party at present resides at Baguihati. Distance of Barasat is 3 about 15 K.Ms. from Baguihati while the distance of Sealdah is 11 K.Ms. from the residence of the opposite party. Under such circumstances, the suit may be transferred to Sealdah.
Mr. Abhijit Ray, learned Advocate for the opposite party has filed affidavit-in-opposition against the aforesaid application. In his opposition he has denied the allegation made out by the petitioner in his application. It is submitted by Mr. Ray that the opposite party wants to get the suit transferred from Barasat to Sealdah only on the ground that he was allegedly threatened by some unknown persons to withdraw the said suit from Barasat Court and not to come to Barasat at any point of time. According to Mr. Ray, date of hearing of the said suit was not fixed on 19th June, 2019. The petitioner could not clearly state as to why he visited Barasat Court on that date when the suit was not posted for hearing.
Mr. Ray also submits that it is not only the distance between the residence and the Court of a particular party that is to be considered in a proceeding under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of a matrimonial suit. It is the convenience of the wife that is the prime consideration that should be looked into. In support of his contention Mr. Ray refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumita Singh
-Vs.- Kumar Sanjay reported in 2001 (10) SCC 41.
Having heard the submission made by the learned Advocate for the opposite party and on perusal of entire materials-on-record, this Court likes to record at the outset that filing a prayer for transfer of a matrimonial suit has now become almost a regular affair. It appears that almost each and every matrimonial suit, one party or other files application for transfer of the suit. This Court once exercised the jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and transferred the suit from Howrah to Barasat. The petitioner 4 does not want to contest the suit at Barasat on the plea that he may be threatened or harassed or humiliated or manhandled by the opposite party and his henchmen. I am in conformity with the submission made by Mr. Ray that police did not take any action against the opposite party or his family members on the basis of the said complaint made by the petitioner herein. The petitioner cannot substantiate the truthfulness of the said complaint by producing related documents.
Therefore, keeping in mind the fact that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already exercised a jurisdiction of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I am not inclined to exercise the same jurisdiction by allowing the application filed by the petitioner.
However, it is made clear that if the petitioner makes any complaint with regard to his genuine apprehension of threat attributed to him by the opposite party or her men and agents, the petitioner is at liberty to take shelter of the police authority and the local police authority is directed to give full protection under Witness Protection Scheme, 2015.
With this order the revisional application being C.O. 2507 of 2019 is disposed of on contest.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)