Ankita Roy (Tribedi) vs Sayantan Roy

Bibek Chaudhuri, J

This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the wife/petitioner praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 220 of 2019 filed by the husband/opposite party for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce in the Court of the learned District Judge, Purba Burdwan to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Kalyani in the district of Nadia on the following grounds:-

(i) Marriage of the petitioner was solemnized on 9th of July, 2018. Prior to social marriage, the parties were registered under the Special Marriage Act on 28th February, 2018;

(ii) After marriage, the petitioner's stay at her matrimonial home was not happy as she was subjected to physical and mental torture by the opposite party and her matrimonial relations;

(iii) The petitioner has been residing at her paternal home at Kalyani on and from 22nd March, 2019;

(iv) The petitioner has not been favoured with any maintenance by her husband which has compelled her to file a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kalyani;

(v) On petitioner's complaint, a criminal case has been registered against the opposite party under Sections 498A/323/325/506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the same is pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalyani;

(vi) The petitioner has also filed a proceeding under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of search warrant for recovery of stridhan articles from her matrimonial home;

In all the above mentioned proceedings, the opposite party entered appearance and has been contesting at Kalyani. The petitioner has no source of income. She is presently aged about 19 years. At this age, it is not possible for the petitioner to attend Purba Burdwan Court to contest the suit.

So is the prayer for transfer of the said suit.

Ms. Deblina Lahiri, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that though the opposite party had sworn an affidavit declaring himself as a private employee of a shop-room, he is the owner of a automobile shop selling spare parts of motorbike and other automobiles. He earns approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) per month. The petitioner being the wife of the opposite party has special knowledge about the income of the opposite party and prima facie the petitioner's contention must be adhered to by the Court in order to find out as to whether the opposite party will face any inconvenience to attend Kalyani Court from Purba Burdwan. On the other hand, the petitioner has no source of income. She is fully dependent upon her parents. Her father is a school teacher. He does not get leave from his service to accompany the petitioner to Burdwan Court. Considering the inconvenience, the said matrimonial suit ought to be transferred to Kalyani where the petitioner has been residing at present.

Mr. Uday Sankar Chattapadhyay, learned advocate for the opposite party has not seriously disputed the prayer for transfer of the matrimonial suit filed by his client against the petitioner. However, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that if the suit is transferred to Chinsurah in the district of Hooghly, both the parties will not face any inconvenience.

Factual background and circumstances pleaded by the petitioner is not disputed by the opposite party inasmuch as the petitioner has been residing at her paternal home. Only after few months of marriage she had to leave her matrimonial home. Three numbers of criminal proceedings instituted by the petitioner are pending at Kalyani and the opposite party entered appearance in the said proceedings.

Well settled is the law that while disposing of an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of a matrimonial suit, inconvenience of the wife must get preference over the inconvenience of the husband/opposite party. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi -vs- Kishor Babulal Pardeshi reported in 2005(12)SCC 237 may be relied on in this regard. This Court may also refer to another decision of this Court in the case of Pampa Banerjee -vs- Mridul Banerjee, reported in 2016(4) CHN(Cal.) Page-80.

It is not disputed that the opposite party has appeared in Kalyani Court to contest criminal cases filed by the petitioner. Therefore, he will not face any inconvenience if he is directed to contest the matrimonial suit at Kalyani.

Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to accept the proposal of the learned advocate for the opposite party that the matrimonial suit may be transferred to Chinsurah. In such case, the opposite party will be compelled to travel at least two different courts, viz, Kalyani and Chinsurah.

For the reasons stated above, the instant revisional application is allowed on contest, however, without costs.

The Matrimonial Suit No. opposite party in the Court of Purba Burdwan be transferred 220 of 2019 filed by the the learned District Judge, to the learned Additional District Judge, Kalyani in the district of Nadia for trial and disposal.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned District Judge, Purba Burdwan and the learned Additional District Judge, Kalyani through the learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar through the department for information and compliance of the order.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.