Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 707 (CAL)

Nasima Khatun v. Syed Asgar Hossain

2009-09-04

MD.ABDUL GHANI

body2009
Judgment :- (1.) The instant application under Section 24 of the CPC has been filed by one Nasima Khatun seeking transfer of the Matrimonial Suit No. 1 of 2007 from the Court of learned 2nd Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah to any, such Court of Hooghly. (2.) Having gone through the materials on record including the contents of the application under Section 24 of the CPC as also the plaint of MAT Suit No. 1 of 2007 and some other materials on record including the contents of the copy of MAT Suit No. 2005 of 2006 it could be said that the present petitioners marriage with the O.P. Syed Asgar Hossain took place on 1.12.2005 in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. After marriage petitioner and O.P. lived together for some time and thereafter the present petitioner started living separate w.e.f. July, 2006. It would appear that in July, 2006 O.P. -husband brought MAT Suits being No. 2005 of 2006 and C/819 of 2006 against the present petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah and both the suits were ultimately dismissed and withdrawn respectively. It would further appear that on 21.5.2007 when the petitioner was going to attend Sealdah Court at that point of time the O.P. -husband along with three other persons of his group threatened the petitioner and created pressure upon her to go with him. Thereafter, the petitioner took shelter at Muchipara P.S. and expressed her views to lodge general diary against the O.P., but the Duty Officer refused to accept the same. Subsequently on 11.6.2007 the petitioner sent written complaint to D,C. (Central), Lalbazar and O.C., Muchipara P.S. and also filed Title Suit No. 121 of 2007 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st Court, Hooghly at Chinsurah praying for declaration that there is no marriage between the petitioner and the O.P. Thus, two MAT Suits are now pending between the petitioner and O.P. at Sealdah Court and Hooghly at Chinsurah. (3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner while making submission drew this Courts attention to the materials on record and emphatically submitted that considering the safety, security and all other surrounding circumstances of the petitioner, the MAT Suit No. 1 of 2007, now pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court, Sealdah needs to be transferred to any such Court of Hooghiy at Chinsurah. (4.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. -husband referring to the materials on record submitted that in a case like the present one, the petitioner-wife taking advantage of certain situation has prayed for transfer of the case without any cogent ground. In support of his contention he has relied upon a ruling reported in (2006)9 SCC 197 (Anindita Das v. Srijit Das) and strongly urged that in the existing circumstances of the case the application under Section 24 of CPC deserves rejection. (5.) Having heard the submission of the learned Counsels for the parties concerned and also on perusal of the materials on record it would be made clear before this Court that the petitioners marriage with the O.P. took place in a Mosque of Baghmore, Calcutta, although, her parents place situates at village Bhatua under Polba P.S. in the district of Hooghly. Further, it is the evident situation that the respondent happens to be a police personnel. True it is that petitioner tried to lodge complaint against the respondent before the O.C., Muchipara, but the complaint was not received by the Duty Officer perhaps for the reasons that the O.P. is a police personnel and subsequently petitioner has submitted another letter to D.C. (Central) , Calcutta expressing her grievances regarding non-receipt of diary as also the factum of threatening and pressure created upon her from the end of the O.P. with a view to forcefully taking her to the place of O.P. It is seen that in all as many as four cases arose between the petitioner and the O.P. and out of four suits two suits have been withdrawn and now the present one and the other MAT Suit are pending at Sealdah and Hooghly, (6.) Having regard to the safety and security of the petitioner and giving due consideration to the fact that O.P. happens to be a police personnel the application under Section 24 of the CPC needs to be allowed. In this context, it may be pertinent to point out that the ruling cited on behalf of the O.P. cannot be said to be helpful as because in the case referred to, the ruling relates to financial stringencies on the part the petitioner-wife, while in the present case the wifes safety and security of life is involved to a great extent. (7.) Therefore, upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties concerned and regard being had to the totality of the circumstances I am of the view that it would be expedient and proper to allow the present application under Section 24 of the CPC for the sake of rendering justice. In the result, the application under Section 24 of CPC stands allowed. Accordingly, the suit no 1 of 2007, pending before the learned 2nd Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sealdah is hereby transferred to the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Hooghly at Chinsurah. The application under Section 24 of the CPC is thus disposed of. (8.) However, I make no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy be to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.