Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 386 (CAL)

Alpana Sarkar (Das) v. Partha Sarkar

2012-04-30

Tapan Kumar Dutt

body2012
Judgment The wife-petitioner has stated in her application that she is a W.B.C.S. Officer and working as a Child Development Project Officer. The husband-opposite party had filed a Matrimonial Suit praying for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore and the wife-petitioner has stated in her application that the petitioner intended to lead conjugal life with the opposite party and, therefore, did not oppose the said suit. It appears from the application that an Execution Case No. 6671 of 2011 has been filed pursuant to the decree passed in the said Matrimonial Suit and such Execution Case is pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 12th Court, South 24-Parganas at Alipore. The wife-petitioner has prayed for transfer of the said Execution Case to the Court to the learned District Judge, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat. 2. The learned Advocate for the wife-petitioner has submitted that it is not possible for the wife-petitioner to attend the learned Court at Alipore regularly as the wife-petitioner has to perform her duties on day-to-day basis. The said learned Advocate has further submitted that there is none to accompany the wife-petitioner for the purpose of attending the said Execution Case. The said learned Advocate has also submitted that two proceedings, one being proceeding before the criminal Court and another being proceeding before the Matrimonial Court are pending at Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat and as such the Execution Case may be transferred to Balurghat. 3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the husband-opposite party has opposed the prayer for transfer and he has submitted that none of the grounds taken in the application are good enough for an order to be passed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transfer of the Matrimonial Suit. The said learned Advocate submitted that the suit for restitution of conjugal right is already over and the execution proceeding is pending and it can be reasonably expected that the said execution proceeding would not linger for a long time. The said learned Advocate submitted that the suit for restitution of conjugal right is already over and the execution proceeding is pending and it can be reasonably expected that the said execution proceeding would not linger for a long time. The said learned Advocate also submitted that since the wife-petitioner is a W.B.C.S. Officer, the ground taken that she has none to accompany her is no ground at all and it is not that everyday the wife-petitioner will have to attend the Execution case, but, only on days fixed in the said execution proceeding the wife/petitioner may be required to attend and, thus, it should not create any difficulty for the wife-petitioner to attend the said Execution Case. The said learned Advocate submitted that the pendency of other proceedings at Dakshin Dinajpur cannot automatically compel transfer of the said Execution Case, as prayed for by the wife-petitioner. 4. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that considering the fact that the Matrimonial Suit for restitution of conjugal right has already been decreed and only the Execution Case is pending at Alipore, it is not necessary to transfer the said Execution Case, as prayed for by the wife-petitioner. It is expected that the learned Executing Court will try to dispose of the said Execution Case as early as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties. The ground taken by the wife-petitioner that she has none to accompany her is not a sufficient ground in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The facts that some other proceedings are pending at Dakshin Dinajpur are also not strong enough grounds for passing an order of transfer of the Execution Case. 5. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is dismissed. 6. The affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply filed in Court today by the respective learned Advocates be kept on record. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.