Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 101 (GAU)

Sikha Paul Choudhury v. Dilip Paul Choudhury

2002-02-28

AMITAVA ROY

body2002
AMITAVA ROY, J. - This is an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with Section 151 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for an appropriate order to transfer the proceedings of Divorce Case No. 12 (T) of 1997, presently pending in the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, to the Court of District Judge, North Tripura, Kailashahar. I have heard Sri S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. The brief facts are, that the opposite party filed the suit being Divorce Case No. 12(T) of 1997 in the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, under Section 13 (1) (1 -A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, (hereafter referred to as the Act,) praying for a decree for dissolution of marriage with Revision petitioner by divorce. Considering the issue involved in the present proceedings, it is not necessary to go into the details of the allegations made in the application for divorce. The Revision petitioner, the wife, receiving the summons of the suit has approached with the present petition with the prayer as mentioned above. Shri Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the statements made in the Revision petition, more particularly those in para 8. In the said paragraph, it has been categorically stated that the Revision petitioner has no income of her own and has been residing with her parents at Pataikur Bazar (Kailashahar) and is fully dependent upon her father for her sustenance. It is further stated in the Revision petition that the father of the Revision petitioner is aged about 76 years and he is a Retd. Govt. servant, pension being the only source of income. It is further stated that the father of the revision petitioner is old and ailing and her brothers are also residing outside Kailashahar and there is no other relative where she can take shelter. In her petition she has further stated that to contest the matrimonial case she will have to come to Shillong and that, apart from the financial crunch, she is not accustomed to travel alone and as her brothers are busy in their respective jobs there is none to escort her to Shillong to defend her case. These statements are supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner. 3. These statements are supported by an affidavit sworn by the petitioner. 3. No affidavit-in-opposition, to the revision petition has been filed by the opposite party. Sri Sarma, appearing for the opposite party drew my attention to the statement made in the Divorce petition to the effect that once Ganga PrasacL with whom the revision Petitioner had allegedly some illicit relation made an attempt on his (opposite party) life, but the same could be averted because of the alterness of the opposite party. He submitted before this court, that if his client is required to go to Kailashahar to attend the divorce proceedings, he has a risk of life. He has argued that the Proceedings may be transferred to a Court at any place preferably in between Shillong and Kailashahar. He also submitted that his client was ready and willing to meet the necessary expenses incurred by the revision petitioner in coming to Shillong to contest the petition. He has also argued that there is a provision for giving alimony under the Act and he is agreeable to make payments as would be ordered by the Court under the said provision of law. 4. I have heard the rival contentions of the parties. Mr. Dutta in support of his contentions, founded on the statements made in the revision Petition, relies on two decisions of the Apex Court reported in (2000) JO SCC p. 304 Geeta Heera -vs-Harish Chander Heera and (2000) 10SCC p. 350 Archana Rastogi -vs- Rakesh Rastogi and also a decision of this Court reported in (1995) 3 G ,R 370: 1995(3) GLT 500: Krishna Roy Choudhury -vs-RanjitRoy Choudhury. In the case reported in Geeta Heera, supra, it was contended by the wife in support of her prayer for transfer of the Matrimonial proceedings that she did not have sufficient finance to meet the expenses to visit the place of trial and that she also entertained the risk of her life in case she was required to do so. The Apex Court in that case allowed the request for transfer on the ground of insufficiency of funds. In the case reported in Archana Rastogi, supra, the wife in a similar situation prayed for transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings on health grounds. It was also allowed by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in that case allowed the request for transfer on the ground of insufficiency of funds. In the case reported in Archana Rastogi, supra, the wife in a similar situation prayed for transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings on health grounds. It was also allowed by the Apex Court. In the decision reported in Krishna Roy Choudhury (supra) in reply to the prayer made by the wife, the husband offered to pay to her, to and from travelling expenses for the wife and one escort. In that case also the wife had raised the plea that she had none to escort her to the place of trial and that, her father who was old and ailing and her brothers were not in a position to accompany her to the place of proceedings. This court, considering the facts and circumstances, granted the prayer for transfer of the proceedings. 5. As noticed above, in the present revision petition, the opposite party has not filed any affidavit, controverting the statements made in the Revision petition. The apprehension with regard to the risk of the life of the opposite party is related to an incident of 1995 as mentioned above. There is nothing on record, concrete and convincing, that the said apprehension exists even today. It is therefore, difficult for this court to refuse the prayer of the Revision petitioner for transferring the proceedings on that ground. With regard to the offer made on behalf of the opposite party/husband to "meet the expenses for the journey and also the litigation expenses, the same cannot be accepted to be enough to deny the relief prayed for. Keeping in view the categorical statements of the Revision petitioner supported by an affidavit. This court feels in the above premises, that it would be in the interest of justice, that the prayer of the petitioner wife be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above discussion, the prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the proceedings of the Divorce case No. 12 (T) of 1997, pending in the court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong to the court of District Judge, North Tripura at Kailashahar is allowed. The case records of the aforesaid Divorce case be immediately transferred to the file of District Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura. 6. The case records of the aforesaid Divorce case be immediately transferred to the file of District Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura. 6. The learned District Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura on receipt of the records would issue fresh notices to the parties and after the parties appear in the proceedings before that court, it would pass appropriate orders for, early disposal, thereof in accordance with law. 7. The learned counsel for the parties submits that as the suit is of the year 1997, appropriate directions be given by this Court to the learned District Judge, for early disposal of the case. He has also prayed for a date to be fixed for appearance of the parties. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to this prayer. Accordingly, in the fitness of things, it is directed that the parties would appear before the learned District Judge, Kailashahar, North Tripura on 11.4.2002 to take further orders from the said Court in connection with the said proceedings. As the suit is of the year 1997, the learned District Judge Kailashahar, North Tripura, shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible and within a period not exceeding six months from the date of receipt of the records. With the above directions, this revision petition is disposed of. There would be no orders as to costs.