C.O. 2462 of 2019
Smt. Ankita Roy (Tribedi)
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
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,
(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
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
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. 220 of 2019 filed by the
opposite party in the Court of the learned District Judge,
Purba Burdwan be transferred to the learned Additional
District Judge, Kalyani in the district of Nadia for trial and
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
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)