List – S/L
Sl. No. 06
Ct. No. 25
C. O. 3734 of 2017
Shreya Dey nee Nandi
Arpan Kumar Dey
Mr. Ranjan Kali, Adv.,
Ms. Nabanita Dutta, Adv.
…for the petitioner.
Ms. Trina Mitra, Adv.
…for the opposite party.
Affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner in Court today be kept with the
The instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereafter C.P.C.) is filed by the wife/petitioner against her husband/opposite
party praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2016 pending before the
learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Siliguri in
the district of Darjeeling.
In her application, the petitioner has stated that her marriage was
solemnized as per Hindu rights and customs on 26th January, 2016 with the
opposite party. Immediately after marriage the petitioner was subjected to
tremendous physical and mental torture which compelled her to lodge a complaint
with the Women Police Station, Jalpaiguri. On the basis of such complaint, a
criminal case is registered under Section 498A/307 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband. The opposite
party subsequently filed the above-mentioned matrimonial suit. In the said suit
the petitioner entered her appearance and filed an application under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony pendente lite. The learned District
Judge, Jalpaiguri passed an order of payment of interim alimony in favour of the
petitioner. Since after passing of the aforesaid order, the opposite party with the
help of his men and agents has been threatening the petitioner so that she may
not take any step in the matrimonial suit and the suit may be heard ex parte.
Moreover, the opposite party made some obnoxious allegation against her and her
father in the facebook causing humiliation and disgrace of the petitioner. The
matter was duly informed by the petitioner in Cyber Crime Police Station for
initiating a case against the opposite party under penal provisions of Information
and Technology Act. According to the petitioner, she apprehends that she will be
harassed and humiliated in the hand of the opposite party at Jalpaiguri and she
will also not be able to represent her case properly as the father of the opposite
party is a well known Advocate at Jalpaiguri District Court and opposite party
himself is a medical practitioner at Jalpaiguri. Therefore, the petitioner has
prayed for transferring Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2016 to the Court of the
learned Additional District Judge at Siliguri.
The opposite party has filed affidavit-in-opposition against the above-
mentioned application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. wherein and whereunder the
allegation made out by the petitioner is denied. The opposite party specifically
pleaded that the petitioner is a short-tempered lady. She used to pick up quarrel
with the opposite party without any reason. She used to threaten her husband
saying that he and his parents would be falsely implicated in criminal case. On
18th January, 2016, the petitioner voluntarily left her matrimonial home and
despite repeated request made by the opposite party, she never turned up.
Finding no other alternative the opposite party filed a suit for divorce being
Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2016 before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri. The
opposite party, on the other hand, alleged that the petitioner has been
threatening him with the help of his father who is a member of Railway Protection
The petitioner, in turn, has filed affidavit-in-reply controverting the specific
statement and allegation made by the opposite party in his affidavit-in-opposition.
Mr. Ranjan Kali, learned Advocate for the petitioner made his submission to
the tune of what has been stated in the application filed by the petitioner as well
as in the affidavit-in-reply. At the outset, it is submitted by him that the distance
between Siliguri and Jalpaiguri is not an issue that compelled the petitioner to file
the instant application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. The petitioner has filed the
instant application for transfer of the case on two-fold grounds. First, the father
of the opposite party is an Advocate of Jalpaiguri District Court and there is every
chance that he may exert undue influence upon his colleagues and the petitioner
may not get the opportunity to represent her case. Secondly, the opposite party
himself is a Doctor by profession at Jalpaiguri. He has been threatening the
petitioner through his men and agents so that the petitioner may not contest the
matrimonial suit. He also made some obnoxious remarks touching the character
of the petitioner in facebook causing thereby wide circulation of bogus and
baseless allegation touching the chastity of the petitioner through internet.
Ms. Trina Mitra, learned Advocate for the opposite party, on the other hand,
submits that petitioner has been contesting Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2016
before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri. She filed an application under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for alimony pendente lite. An
interim order was passed against the opposite party directing him to pay alimony
at the rate of Rs.6,500/- per month. The opposite party has been going on
paying the said sum regularly. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner suggests that
she does not find any problem in representing her case before the learned District
Judge at Jalpaiguri. Therefore, there is no reason to transfer the aforesaid
matrimonial suit to Siliguri.
Having heard the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the
petitioner and the opposite party and on perusal of the materials-on-record, I find
that the allegation of publishing obnoxious statement against the petitioner in the
facebook by the opposite party is not specifically denied by him. It is also not
disputed that the father of the opposite party is a practicing Advocate of Jalpaiguri
Court. The petitioner apprehends that her case may not be represented properly
at Jalpaiguri because the father of the opposite party may influence other
Advocates engaged by the petitioner.
It is the foremost duty of the Court to see that justice should be imparted in
a fair manner where both the parties will be able to represent their case before
the judiciary for proper adjudication. If a party apprehends that her case may not
be represented by her Counsel at a particular Court because of the fact that her
father-in-law is a practising Advocate of that Court, justice demands that the case
should be transferred to some other Court for fair and proper disposal.
In the instant case, it is not disputed that the father of the opposite party is
a Senior Advocate of Jalpaiguri Court. The apprehension of the petitioner that she
may not be able to represent her case at Jalpaiguri Court cannot be viewed as
whimsical and baseless apprehension under the facts and circumstances of the
In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the instant
application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. should deserve favourable
Accordingly, the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. is allowed on
contest without cost.
Matrimonial Suit No. 27 of 2016 pending in the Court of the learned District
Judge, Jalpaiguri be transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District
Judge, 1st Court at Siliguri.
Office is directed to send a copy of this order to both the Courts below for
information and necessary action.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the
learned Advocates for the parties on the usual undertakings.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)