SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Suman Sankar Bhunia vs Smt. Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty on 9 December, 2019

1

09.12.2019

suman 04
Ct.17
C.O.4105 of 2018
With
CAN 9929 of 2019

Suman Sankar Bhunia
Vs.

Smt. Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya
Ms. Amita Shaw
…for the petitioner/husband

Mr. Arunabha Sengupta
Mr. Anjan Biswas
…for the applicant/opposite party

Re. CAN 9929 of 2019

This is an application for recalling the order dated 9th

September, 2019 by restoring CAN 2684 of 2019.

Learned advocate for the applicant/opposite party who

is newly engaged by the applicant submits that he is ready

for hearing of CAN 2684 of 2019. The applicant/opposite

party may be given an opportunity to place her case in

support of the above mentioned application. Without going

into the averment made in the instant application I am

inclined to allow the same in order to give an opportunity to

the petitioner to submit her case in respect of CAN 2684 of
2

2019 specially when the learned advocate for the opposite

party is also agreeable to get CAN 2684 of 2019 disposed of

on merit.

Accordingly, CAN 9929 of 2019 is allowed.

CAN 2684 of 2019 is an application for recalling of the

order dated 21st February, 2019 passed by this Court in C.O.

4105 of 2018.

Suffice it to mention that since C.O.4105 of 2018 was

filed by the husband of the applicant praying for transfer of

two applications under Sections 17 and Section12 of the Guardians

and SectionWards Act, 1890 from the Court of the learned District

Judge, Darjeeling to the Court of learned District Judge,

North 24 Parganas at Barasat. It was contended by the

petitioner that the applicant /opposite party/wife/mother of

their children used to work as research associate under the

Council of Scientific and Indian Research (CSIR) on contract.

Both of them used to reside within the jurisdiction of the

learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas with their minor

child. On 9th September, 2018, the opposite party left her

matrimonial home leaving behind a SMS. At that time she

was pregnant and subsequently she gave birth to a second

child at her paternal home at Siliguri sometimes in January,
3

2019. On 21st February, 2019 the opposite party failed to

take step in the hearing of the said revisional application.

This Court duly considered the provision of Section 9 (1) of

the Guardians and SectionWards Act and on due consideration of the

fact that the opposite party was enjoying maternity leave for

birth of her second child and it was expected that she would

join her job at CSIR and stay along with her children within

the jurisdiction of North 24 Parganas, the Court passed the

order allowing the application filed by the petitioner

transferring both the proceedings under Sections 17 and Section12

of the Guardians and SectionWards Act from the Court of the

learned District Judge, Darjeeling to the Court of the learned

District Judge, North 24 Parganas at Barasat.

That on 7th March, 2019 the opposite party filed an

application for recalling of the aforesaid order dated 21st

February, 2019. The said application was registered as CAN

2684 of 2019. It is stated in the said application that on 21st

February, 2019 when C.O. 4105 of 2018 was fixed for

hearing before this Court, learned advocates for the opposite

party could not take any step as they missed the cause list

published on 21st February, 2019.

4

In course of argument it is submitted by Mr. Arunabha

Sengupta, learned advocate for the opposite party that she

has already resigned her job as research associate at CSIR,

Kolkata and she has joined in an institution at Jodhpur,

Rajasthan. She has been residing with her children at

Jodhpur. He frankly submits that in view of the changing

circumstances, no fruitful purpose will be served if the order

dated 21st February, 2019 is recalled and final order is

passed refusing the prayer for transfer of the above

mentioned two proceedings under Guardians and SectionWards Act

to North 24 Parganas and the proceedings are allowed to be

continued in Darjeeling. It is also submitted by him that the

applicant has been advised to file an application before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 25 of the Code of Civil

Procedure for transfer of the said two proceedings from West

Bengal to Rajasthan.

In view of such submission, this Court is of the

considered view that no fruitful purpose will be served if the

order dated 21st February, 2019 is recalled inasmuch as the

opposite party has been residing at Jodhpur with her two

minor children.

5

Considering all such circumstances stated above, I do

not find any merit in CAN 2684 of 2019.

The application is thus considered and rejected.

(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