SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Nandita Saha vs Sri Aniket Saha on 9 January, 2018





C.O. No. 3852 of 2017

Smt. Nandita Saha


Sri Aniket Saha

Mr. Purnasish Ray
… for the petitioner

This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 1547 of 2017 for

Restitution of Conjugal Rights under Section 22 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 pending in the

Court of learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South) to the Court of

learned District Judge at Cooch Behar, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioner having no

income has to spend at least an amount of Rs. 2000/- towards traveling expenses and Rs. 1500/-

towards food and lodging expenses apart from the fees of her learned advocate and other expenses.

The father of the petitioner is not having enough income to support the petitioner as he has to

maintain his family expenses apart from the huge legal expenses to be incurred for contesting the

matrimonial suit. The allegation made in paragraph 3 of the petition, the petitioner was subjected

to physical and mental torture by her husband and his family members and driven out from the

matrimonial house on 30.4.2017. As a result, she came to her father’s house at Cooch Behar and

since then the petitioner is living with her family members at New Dabri Road Bye Lane (West),

Police Station : Kotwali, Post Office and District : Cooch Behar. It could appear from the petition

that there is no case registered on behalf of the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code. There is no application under Domestic Violence Act as well filed

by the petitioner in any Court at Cooch Behar for any protection order.

Therefore, the story of physical and mental torture cannot be readily and prima facie

accepted. A party has got the right to choose forum and the petitioner cannot get the case

transferred to Cooch Behar for her convenience because the convenience of the petitioner is also

not required to take into consideration in an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. However, if the petitioner has to attend Alipore Court on the date of hearing, she would

certainly be entitled to the amount incurred on account of her travelling and food and lodging as

well which could be payable obviously by the opposite party husband in the proceeding before the

trial Court in matrimonial suit.

Thus, I do not find any reason to issue any notice or pass any order for the opposite party to

appear and contest the application.

Accordingly, the revisional application being CO 3852 of 2017 is dismissed, however,

without any order as to costs.

Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the party,

subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Shivakant Prasad, J.)

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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