Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 259 (CAL)

Debamita Barat nee Sengupta v. Anindya Barat

2014-03-21

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2014
Judgment : Prasenjit Mandal, J. This is an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. and is filed by the wife/respondent for transfer of a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.1 of 2013 filed under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Raghunathpur, Purulia to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Asansol, District Burdwan. The wife/petitioner herein has contended that the marriage between the two was solemnized under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on August 13, 2011 and then the parties started living as husband and wife in her in-law’s house. Subsequently, the husband/opposite party herein instituted a matrimonial suit being Matrimonial Suit No.1 of 2013 before the learned Additional District Judge, Raghunathpur for dissolution of marriage and other consequential reliefs. The wife/petitioner entered an appearance in that suit and filed an application contending, inter alia, that at present, she has been residing at Dehri On Sone under the Bihar State for service and in order to attend the Court at Raghunathpur, she has to travel a journey of 400 kms. and as such, she has prayed for transfer of the said matrimonial suit to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Asansol. The husband/opposite party is contesting the said application contending, inter alia, that the grounds stated in the application are not true and so, the application should be dismissed. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, it appears that there is no dispute that the husband has instituted the aforesaid matrimonial suit for dissolution of marriage against the wife/petitioner herein under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and at present, for gains, she has been residing at Dehri On Sone. So, in order to attend the Court at Raghunathpur, she has to come to Asansol first and then by a local train to Jaichandipahar and then to come to Raghunathpur Court by rickshaw or otherwise. Thus, she will have to travel a distance of 400 kms. to attend the Court for the purpose of the said matrimonial suit. The husband has contended that the allegations against him are false. This application has been filed to delay the disposal of the matrimonial suit and the distance is not so as mentioned in the application. Thus, she will have to travel a distance of 400 kms. to attend the Court for the purpose of the said matrimonial suit. The husband has contended that the allegations against him are false. This application has been filed to delay the disposal of the matrimonial suit and the distance is not so as mentioned in the application. The allegation of security as contended by the petitioner is not also true and so, the application should be dismissed. There is no dispute that the wife is staying at Dehri On Sone, Bihar, for her gains and the said matrimonial suit is pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Raghunathpur, district Purulia, West Bengal. The petitioner has shown a railway ticket showing journey from her place of service to Asansol Jn. of 345 kms. away and it is the specific contention of the wife that she has to travel 30 kms. more for going to the Court at Raghunathpur via Jaichandipahar by local trains which are a few in number. The contention as raised by the wife, in my view, is very convincing. In support of such contention, Mr. Indranath Mitra, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurchanran Singh v. Kandi Friends Education Trust & ors. reported in (2008) 3 SCC 659 and thus, he has contended that in order to dispose of an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. particularly when it is filed by the wife, the Court should not be swayed away by sympathy, but to consider the convenience or inconvenience of a particular place, reasonable apprehension in the mind of the litigant that he might not get justice in the Court in which the suit is pending and so on. In the instant case, the allegation is not against the Court but the distance to be travelled by the wife/petitioner herein to attend the Court at Raghunathpur from her place of service. This decision lays down the basic principles to be considered in allowing the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. On the other hand, Mr. In the instant case, the allegation is not against the Court but the distance to be travelled by the wife/petitioner herein to attend the Court at Raghunathpur from her place of service. This decision lays down the basic principles to be considered in allowing the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. On the other hand, Mr. P. Chaturvedi, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party has referred to the decision of Anindita Das v. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 and thus, he has contended that the Court must see that no leniency is shown to the ladies as the provisions of Section 24 of the C.P.C. might be misused. In the instant case, keeping in mind the distance to be travelled, in my view, there is no question of leniency as referred to in the said decision of Anindita Das (supra). Accordingly, in my view, the decision cited by Mr. Chaturvedi will not be applicable in the instant case. But, the general principles as discussed in the case of Kulwinder Kaur @ Kulwinder Gurcharan Singh (supra), in my view, should be the guiding principles for disposal of the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. The Court must exercise the powers under Section 24 of the C.P.C. with due care, caution and circumspection. In the instant case, considering the distance to be travelled by the wife alone and the fact that the security may be required to travel such a long distance as contended by the wife, her contention cannot be thrown away at all. As per materials on record, the father of the wife had purchased a flat at Asansol town for residing after his retirement from service. This being the position, in my view, upon due consideration of the materials on record, it will be fit and proper to allow this application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. Accordingly, the application succeeds and the same is allowed. The Matrimonial Suit No.1 of 2013 stands transferred from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Raghunathpur to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Asansol having jurisdiction to deal with such matters. The learned Additional District Judge, Raghunathpur shall transfer the said matrimonial suit to the transferee Court immediately. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. The learned Additional District Judge, Raghunathpur shall transfer the said matrimonial suit to the transferee Court immediately. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.