Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sangita Dutta vs Aniruddha Dutta on 22 February, 2017
Author: Mir Dara Sheko
Bench: Mir Dara Sheko
22.2.2017 kc(5) C.O. 1478 of 2016 Sangita Dutta
-versus-
Aniruddha Dutta Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharya, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh.............For the opposite party.
None appears to represent the petitioner/wife, at whose instance this revisional application has been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proposing to transfer the Matrimonial Suit no. 272 of 2015 from the Court of learned District Judge, Burdwan to the Court of learned District Judge, Bankura, which has been presented seeking divorce by the opposite party/husband.
Mr. Hiranmay Bhattacharya, assisted by Mr. Mrinal Kanti Ghosh, learned advocates for the opposite party are present. Nonetheless of representation on behalf of the petitioner, I have examined the materials on record, including the affidavit in opposition, exercised by the opposite party/husband, which was duly served.
Heard Mr. Bhattacharya, who has invited attention of the Court to the specific averments contended in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in opposition, which is set out hereunder:
"I state that the wife/petitioner is not residing at Sanbandha. I state that the petitioner is residing at parental house at Akui, from which Burdwan Court is nearer than Bankura Court. I further state that the wife/petitioner filed a Misc. Case No. 11 of 2016 for alimony pendentelite in connection with the said matrimonial suit and contesting the same at Burdwan Court."2
It is obvious that exercise of jurisdiction under section 24 of the Code is made taking the balance of convenience and inconvenience and other related facts into consideration. While this Court finds that the opposite party/husband specifically averred that the place of residence of the petitioner/wife is much more nearer from the District Judge's Court, Burdwan than the District Judge's Court, Bankura and since the opposite party/ husband resides within the jurisdiction of Burdwan, balance of convenience is held in favour of the opposite party/husband, specially when such averments exercised in the affidavit in opposition was not countered by the petitioner/wife in any manner.
Therefore, the revisional application under section 24 of the Code under reference stands rejected. Stay order, if any, passed by this Court as regards the Matrimonial Suit no. 272 of 2015, pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Burdwan, stands vacated.
Department is directed to communicate a copy of this order forthwith to the Court of learned District Judge, Burdwan with direction to proceed with the matrimonial suit under reference for its disposal in accordance with law.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.
(MIR DARA SHEKO, J.) 3