1
16.01.2020
suman 20
Ct.17
C.O. 3942 of 2019
Smt. Debdutta Das Datta
Vs.
Sri Biswajit Datta
Mr. K. D. Podder
Mr. Pradip Paul
…for the petitioner
Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee
Ms. Paramita Mukherjee
Ms. Moumita Pandit
Mr. S. Naskar
Ms. Jayashree Patra
…for the opposite party
Matrimonial Suit No.2346 of 2019 praying for
dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce is sought to be
transferred from the Court of the learned 15th Additional
District Judge at Alipore, South 24 Parganas to the Court of
the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur at Midnapore.
The ground mentioned in the application under Section 24 of
the Code of Civil Procedure is that the petitioner has filed an
application under various provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act before the learned
Magistrate at Paschim Medinipur. In the said proceeding a
paltry sum of Rs.5,000/- was granted as ad-interim
2
maintenance in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has
been residing within the jurisdiction of Paschim Medinipur
District Judge and it is not possible for her financially to
attend and contest the matrimonial suit at Alipore coming
from Paschim Medinipur. So, the petitioner has prayed for
transferring the said suit at Paschim Medinipur. It is
submitted by Mr. Podder, learned advocate for the petitioner
that in the case of Tejalben versus Mihirbhai Bharalbhai
Kothari reported in 2016 (3) SCC 69 it is held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that when other proceedings
between the parties are pending at Jamnagar, Gujarat, for all
practical purposes matrimonial suit should also be
transferred to Jamnagar. Relying on the said decision it is
submitted by Mr. Podder that since the proceeding under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is pending
at Paschim Medinipur, the matrimonial suit should also be
transferred to Paschim Medinipur.
Per contra, Mr. Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, learned
advocate for the opposite party submits that the opposite
party previously filed a suit for judicial separation. As a
matter of retaliation the petitioner made a complaint under
Section 498A I.P.C. against the opposite party, his parents
3
and sister. At the time of submission of charge sheet, the
sister of the opposite party was discharged. The petitioner
filed a ‘naraji’ petition against such order of discharge of the
opposite party. Thus, the petitioner is hotly contesting the
case under Section 498A I.P.C. against the opposite party
and her other matrimonial relations at Alipore. Therefore,
there is no reason to transfer the matrimonial suit from
Alipore to Paschim Medinipur.
It is also submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that if the Court
at all thinks that the said matrimonial suit ought to be
transferred from Alipore to some other Court, relative
convenience and inconvenience of both the parties should be
looked into. The opposite party is residing at Behala and he
is working in an office situated at Sector -V of Salt Lake City.
The opposite party will also face similar inconvenience if his
case is transferred to Paschim Medinipur. It is suggested by
Mr. Chatterjee that the said matrimonial suit should be
transferred either to Tamluk or to Howrah or to some other
Court in between Alipore and Paschim Medinipur for trial and
disposal. It is also proposed by him that in such case the
opposite party is agreeable to bear the conveyance charges
for the petitioner.
4
The learned advocate for the petitioner, in turn, has
raised vehement objection against such proposal. According
to him, the petitioner does not require to appear daily in the
proceeding under Section 498A I.P.C. On the contrary, she
will have to appear before the Court on each and every
occasion to contest the said matrimonial suit. Considering
such aspect of the matter, the suit should be transferred to
the Court of the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur.
Having heard the submission made by the learned
advocate for the parties and on perusal of the entire
materials on record it is ascertained that the petitioner did
not make any averment about pendency of a case under
Section 498A I.P.C. at Alipore in her application under
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is needless to
say that if a person comes up before the Court seeking some
equitable relief, he /she must come with clean hand. The
fact of pendency of the case under Section 498A I.P.C. at
Alipore is suppressed by the petitioner.
Be that as it may, when the learned advocate for the
opposite party submits that the opposite party is agreeable
to bear the cost of conveyance of the petitioner, I am of the
view, taking into consideration the relative convenience and
5
inconvenience of both the parties, that the matrimonial suit
should be transferred to the Court of the learned District
Judge, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk. In that event, there will
not be much inconvenience of both the parties to represent
and contest the suit.
The opposite party is directed to bear the cost of
conveyance to the petitioner and another person who may
accompany her to Tamluk Court on each and every date of
her appearance before the Court to contest the said suit.
The cost of conveyance is assessed at Rs.500/- per day.
Accordingly, the instant application under Section 24 of the
Code of Civil Procedure is disposed of transferring the
Matrimonial Suit No.2346 of 2019 from the Court of 15th
Additional District Judge at Alipore to the Court of the
learned District Judge at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned
Additional District Judge, 15th Court and learned District
Judge at Tamluk, Purba Medinipur through the department
for compliance.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied
for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties on
usual undertakings.
6
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)