Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 204 (CAL)

Tumpa Jha ( Mishra) @ Chumki v. Manash Mishra

2017-02-21

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. In this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner-wife has prayed for, transfer of the matrimonial suit filed by the opposite party-husband and pending before the Court of the learned District Judge at Jalpaiguri to the Court of the learned District Judge at Murshidabad. 2. After being prima facie satisfied with the case made out by the petitioner on December 6, 2016 this Court passed an interim order directing stay of all further proceedings in Matrimonial Suit No. 108 0f 2016, pending before the learned District Judge at Jalpaiguri till the disposal of this application. The petitioner was directed to serve a copy of this application, together with the copy of the said order dated December 6, 2016 on the opposite party and it appears that the petitioner has complied with the said direction. Mr. Uday Shankar Chatterjee, learned advocate appeared for the opposite party-husband. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that after being compelled to leave the matrimonial home she is presently residing with her parents at Berhampore in the District of Murshidabad. She has no independent source of income nor is she received any maintenance from the opposite party. She has also filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 which pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Berhampore at Murshidabad and the opposite party is contesting the said proceedings. It is the further case of the petitioner that she is facing great hardship to contest the matrimonial suit by travelling the long distance between Berhampore and Jalpaiguri when her ailing father, being the only male member cannot accompany her to Jalpaiguri. 4. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tejalben v. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, reported in AIR 2016 SC 718 Mr. Roy submitted that since the opposite party is already contesting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Murshidabad at Berhampore the petitioner’s prayer in this revisional application should be allowed. 5. Opposing the application Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the opposite party is an advocate practising in the District Court at Jalpaiguri and it will not be convenient for him to attend the matrimonial suit before any Court at Berhampore. 5. Opposing the application Mr. Chatterjee submitted that the opposite party is an advocate practising in the District Court at Jalpaiguri and it will not be convenient for him to attend the matrimonial suit before any Court at Berhampore. He, however, did not dispute that the opposite party is already contesting the proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Court below at Berhampore. 6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tejalen (supra), when the opposite party is already contesting the application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by the petitioner-wife before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court Murshidabad at Berhampore the petitioner has substantiated her ground for obtaining transfer of the matrimonial suit as prayed for in this application. 7. Accordingly, the Matrimonial Suit No. 108 of 2016 [Sri Manash Mishra v. Tumpa Jha (Mishra) alias Chumki] is withdrawn from the Court of the learned District Judge at Jalpaiguri and the same is transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Murshidabad at Berhampore. The learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri is directed to forthwith transmit all the records of the Matrimonial Suit No. 108 of 2016 [Sri Manash Mishra v. Tumpa Jha (Mishra) alias Chumki] to the Court of the learned District Judge, Murshidabad at Berhamproe. The learned District Judge, Murshidabad may assign the matrimonial suit to any learned Court at Berhampore having jurisdiction to entertain matrimonial suits. 8. In order to proceed with the matrimonial suit the opposite party will have to travel from Jalpaiguri to Berhampore and, as such, the learned transferee Court is requested to expeditiously dispose of the matrimonial suit without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 9. With the above directions, CO 3850 of 2016 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties on usual undertaking.