Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 250 (CAL)

Dipanwita Karmakar nee Rana v. Prasanta Karmakar

2017-03-03

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 Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore, South 24Parganas to the Court of any other learned Additional District Judge at Alipore. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this application is that he apprehends the Presiding Officer of the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore is prejudiced against her and she will not get justice from him. In this regard, the petitioners have mentioned various incidents, particularly the observation made by the Presiding Officer of the Court, the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore in the deposition of the DW-2. 3. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party did not raise any objection to the prayer made by the petitioner in this application. 4. Having considered the observation of the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore in the deposition of the D.W.2 on November 25, 2016, I find that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner in this application is bona fide and reasonable. In this connection, the observation of the learned Additional District Judge at Alipore is recorded as follows: “The demeanor of the witness show that he is not willing to give answer directly, all the times he is trying to camouflage the answer.” 5. From a reading of the deposition of the DW-2 on November 25, 2016 as disclosed in this revisional application it is clear that there could not be any reason for the learned Presiding Officer of the Court of the Additional District Judge, 16th Court, Alipore to make the above observation against the DW-2. 6. However, the allegations made against the learned advocate representing the opposite party before the leaned Court below is not pressed by the petitioner. 7. Having considered the facts of the case, as discussed above the Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 2009 (Prasanta Karmakar vs. Dipanwita Karmakar) is withdrawn from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore, South 24-parganas and the same is transferred to the learned District Judge, Alipore South 24-Parganas. 8. 7. Having considered the facts of the case, as discussed above the Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 2009 (Prasanta Karmakar vs. Dipanwita Karmakar) is withdrawn from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore, South 24-parganas and the same is transferred to the learned District Judge, Alipore South 24-Parganas. 8. The learned District Judge, Alipore, South 24-parganas may assign the matrimonial suit to the Court of any other learned Additional District Judge, at Alipore, having jurisdiction to entertain a matrimonial suit. 9. The learned transferee Court shall decide the matrimonial suit without being influenced by the observation made by the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore in the deposition of the D.W.2 on November 25, 2016 or any other observation made against the petitioner or any of her witness. 10. It appears that since the year 2009, the matrimonial suit is pending disposal. Therefore, the learned transferee Court is requested to dispose of the Matrimonial Suit No. 5 of 2009 (Prasanta Karmakar vs. Dipanwita Karmakar) expeditiously, preferably within December, 2017 without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 11. With the above directions, the revisional application, being C.O. 4646 of 2016, stands disposed of. 12. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.