Judgment : In this application preferred under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner-wife has prayed for transfer of the Matrimonial Suit No. 54 of 2015 filed by the opposite party-husband and pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat to the Court of the learned District Judge at Midnapur, District- Paschim Medinipur. Today, this application is taken up for hearing after completion of the pleadings by both the petitioner-wife and the opposite party-husband, respectively. It is the case of the petitioner in her application that the marriage was solemnized at Kharagpur on January 27,2012. After the marriage, the opposite party took her to Hyderabad where he was posted. They stayed at Hyderabad till December 2012 and thereafter, they went to Bengaluru where they resided till October 2013. Thereafter, the opposite party got an assignment and the parties went to United States of America. After completion of the assignment in United States of America, the parties returned to India on January 28,2015 and she was forced to go back to her parents residing at Kharagpur. Mr. Soumak Bera, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, placed averments made by the opposite party in his plaint filed in the matrimonial suit and strenuously urged that the Court of learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat, does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said matrimonial suit, as the parties did not have their matrimonial home, within the jurisdiction of any Court in North 24-Parganas. Mr. Bera, submitted that in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition the opposite party-husband has admitted that after their marriage the parties went to Hyderabad in February 2012, where they stayed till December 2012 and thereafter the parties shifted Bengaluru and stayed there until, they left for United States of America. He further submitted that in paragraph 11 of the plaint filed in the matrimonial suit it is the case of the opposite party that on January 28,2015 when the parties returned from United States of America, the petitioner-wife left him at the Airport and went to her parents’ place after taking 1000 Dollars from him. Thus, according to Mr. He further submitted that in paragraph 11 of the plaint filed in the matrimonial suit it is the case of the opposite party that on January 28,2015 when the parties returned from United States of America, the petitioner-wife left him at the Airport and went to her parents’ place after taking 1000 Dollars from him. Thus, according to Mr. Bera from the averments made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the opposite party, about the stay of the parties after marriage initially at Hyderabad and thereafter at Bengaluru and in United States of America respectively and the allegation made in paragraph 11 of the plaint that the petitioner-wife left the company of the opposite party-husband from the airport itself, substantiate that the parties did not have their matrimonial home was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned District Judge, Barasat, North 24-Parganas. Mr. Bera further submitted that in any event, the petitioner in her application, has also explained her difficulties to attend the matrimonial suit by travelling the long distance of 300 kilometers by train and bus from Kharagpur and Barasat. Mr. Bera’s last submission was, that from the fact that the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the father of the opposite party, it is further evident that the opposite party does not reside in Kolkata and he is residing either abroad or in any different city of India, which has been suppressed from this Court with oblique motive. However, Mr. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, learned senior advocate appearing for the opposite party-husband submitted that in paragraph 5 of the plaint filed in the matrimonial suit, a clear case has been made by the opposite party-husband that the matrimonial home was at 113, Swamijee Pally, Birati, P.O. & P.S.-Nimta, Kolkata- 700 051, District- North 24-Parganas within the jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions of both Mr. Bera and Mr. Banerjee, appearing for the respective parties. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the submissions of both Mr. Bera and Mr. Banerjee, appearing for the respective parties. After going through the plaint filed in the matrimonial suit, it is evident that what has been averred by the opposite party-husband in paragraph 5 of the plaint is that only after the solemnization of the marriage on January 27,2012 some other ceremonies of marriages were held at 113, Swamijee Pally, Birati, P.O.& P.S.-Nimta, Kolkata- 700 051, District North 24-Parganas, that is, the residence of his parents. When the opposite party-husband himself has admitted in his affidavit-in-opposition, to this application, that after solemnization of the marriage, since February 2012 the parties first stayed at Hyderabad, thereafter at Bengaluru and from Bengaluru they went off to United States of America and when in the plaint filed in the matrimonial suit it is the case of the opposite party-husband himself that on their return from United States of America on August 28,2015, the petitioner-wife left his company at the airport itself and went back to her parents’ residence at Kharagpur, there cannot be any doubt that parties never had their matrimonial home at 113, Swamijee Pally, Birati, P.O.& P.S.-Nimta, Kolkata- 700 051, District North 24-Parganas. Therefore, when the marriage was solemnized at Kharagpur, the petitioner-wife being the respondent in the matrimonial suit, at that time of filing of the matrimonial suit resided at Kharagpur and the parties to the marriage last resided together in United State of America, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Bera that the matrimonial suit could not be filed by the opposite party-husband in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat and this Court should exercise power under sub-Section(5) of Section 24 of the Code. Even otherwise also, the petitioner-wife is residing at Kharagpur. There is no allegation in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party is not residing at Kharagpur. Mr. Banerjee did not make any submission to dispute the statements made in the application about the difficulties faced by the petitioner to travel the distance of 300 killometers, to and fro, between Kharagpur and Barasat to contest the matrimonial suit before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat. Mr. Banerjee did not make any submission to dispute the statements made in the application about the difficulties faced by the petitioner to travel the distance of 300 killometers, to and fro, between Kharagpur and Barasat to contest the matrimonial suit before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat. When the petitioner, being the wife, ex-facie substantiated the inconvenience faced by her to contest the matrimonial suit before the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat, Mr. Banerjee did not make any submission that the opposite party will suffer any inconvenience if, the matrimonial suit is transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, as prayed for by the petitioner. Furthermore, when the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the opposite party has been affirmed by his father, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party do not reside with his parents in Kolkata and he is presently residing either abroad or in any other city of India cannot be ignored. At this juncture, Mr. Banerjee appearing for the opposite party-husband submitted that the address of the petitioner-wife mentioned in the cause title of this application is the quarter allotted to her father by the railway authorities and the same cannot be treated as a residence. With utmost respect, I am unable to accept such submission of Mr. Banerjee. While making such submission Mr. Banerjee has overlooked the fact that the address of the petitioner-wife mentioned in the plaint filed in the matrimonial suit filed by the opposite party-husband is the same address as stated in the cause title of this application. Mr. Banerjee further submitted that after filing of the matrimonial suit the petitioner-wife has changed her address from Kharagpur to Titagarh. In the absence of any pleading to that effect in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the opposite party, I am unable to accept such submission. For all the foregoidng reasons, I am satisfied that the petitioner has substantiated a case for obtaining transfer of the matrimonial suit from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat to the Court of the learned District Judge, Medinipur, District – Paschim Medinipur. For all the foregoidng reasons, I am satisfied that the petitioner has substantiated a case for obtaining transfer of the matrimonial suit from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat to the Court of the learned District Judge, Medinipur, District – Paschim Medinipur. Accordingly, the Matrimonial Suit No. 54 of 2015 ( Shri Partha Pratim Sirker v. Smt. Keya Mitra) is withdrawn from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Barasat and the same is transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Medinipur, District Paschim Medinipur. The learned District Judge, North 24 Parganas is directed to forthwith transmit all the records of the Matrimonial Suit No. 54 of 2015 (Shri Partha Pratim Sirker v. Smt. Keya Mitra) to the Court of the learned District Judge, Medinipur, District Paschim Medinipur. The learned District Judge, Medinipur, District. Paschim Medinipur may assign the matrimonial suit to the Court of any learned Additional District Judge, having jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial suits. With the above directions CO No. 1868 of 2015 stands disposed of. Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.