Aparna Singh vs Shakti Singh

Bibek Chaudhuri, J

The petitioner has prayed for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 1306 of 2018 filed by the opposite party with a prayer for restitution of conjugal rights against the petitioner.

The said suit is now pending in the 3rd Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Barasat. The petitioner seeks transfer of the said suit to the Court of the learned District Judge Murshidabad at Berhampore.

On perusal of the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I find that marriage between the parties was registered under the Special Marriage Act on 14th January, 2015. Annexure - 'B' to the application is a copy of a petition filed by the mother of the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Berhampore praying for issuance of search warrant and recovery of the petitioner and her minor daughter from her matrimonial home. It further appears from the record that in Case No. 4597 of 2017 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed an order directing the Officer-in-Charge, Madhyamgram Police Station to recover the petitioner and her minor child from the custody of the opposite party and hand them over to the petitioner. On careful scrutiny of the record it is not found as to whether the Executive Magistrate, Berhampore called for police report to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegation made out by the mother of the petitioner before passing order dated 8th December, 2017. It is also not found as to whether the opposite party was issued notice in the said proceeding under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prima facie, it appears that the said order under Section 97 was passed only on mere asking without considering the rival cases.

The petitioner has prayed for transfer of the suit mainly on the ground that the distance from Murshidabad to Barasat is about 200 K.Ms. and secondly, the petitioner being a destitute lady having no source of income, will face tremendous financial inconvenience if she is compelled to travel a distance of about 4 K.Ms. with her minor child from Murshidabad to Barasat.

Learned Advocate for the opposite party, in course of argument has filed photostat copies of money order coupons to show that the opposite party has been going on paying a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month regularly to the petitioner. The petitioner willfully suppressed the said fact in her application.

I have already stated that marriage between the parties was performed in the year 2015. The petitioner was rescued on the strength of an order passed by the learned Executing Magistrate on a particular date after 8th December, 2017. During the said period no allegation was made either by the petitioner or by her parents before the police authority or any Court alleging physical and mental torture inflicted by the opposite party and his family members upon the petitioner. Mere inconvenience without any material cannot be considered to be a ground for transfer of a matrimonial suit from one Court to another. In this regard observation of a Co-ordinate Bench in an unreported decision passed in C. O. No. 622 of 2019 with C. O. No. 1094 of 2019 (Dipika Agarwal @ Dipika Khaitan -Vs.- Rishi Agarwal) may be relied upon.

I am not unmindful to note that the petitioner will have to spend a substantial amount for travelling from Barasat to Berhampore, Murshidabad on the dates on which the suit shall be fixed for hearing. The opposite party must compensate the petitioner.

Therefore, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per day towards the cost of convenience and other incidental expenditure to be incurred by the petitioner and another person who will accompany her from Barasat to Murshidabad and back. This sum shall, of course, be the amount over and above what has been sent by the opposite party by money order towards maintenance of the petitioner and her son.

With the above direction, the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. is disposed of on contest, however, without cost.