SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Ankita Roy (Tribedi) vs Sri Sayantan Roy on 17 September, 2019

1

17.09.2019
10
b.r
Crt.25
C.O. 2462 of 2019

Smt. Ankita Roy (Tribedi)

-vs-

Sri Sayantan Roy

Ms. Deblina Lahiri
…… for the petitioner.

Mr. Uday Sankar Chattapadhyay
Mr. Suman Sankar Chattapadhyay,
……. For the Opposite Party.

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 SectionSpecial Marriage Act on

28th February, 2018;

(ii) After marriage, the petitioner’s stay at her

matrimonial home was not happy as she was
2

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/Section323/Section325/Section506/ Section34 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
3

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.

4

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
5

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. 220 of 2019 filed by the

opposite party in the Court of the learned District Judge,

Purba Burdwan be transferred to the learned Additional
6

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.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation