Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 669 (CAL)

Suparna Mohanta (Halder) v. Jayanta Halder

2017-08-08

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. From the track report issued by the postal department as disclosed in the affidavit-of-service, it is not clear whether the learned advocate representing the opposite party in the matrimonial suit has received the copies of the application, the supplementary affidavit and the orders passed by this Court. 2. On March 21, 2017 this Court passed an interim order in this application directing stay of all further proceedings in the Matrimonial Suit No. 62 of 2016 (Jayanta Halder v. Suparna Halder), pending before the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore, till the disposal of this application. 3. The petitioner was directed to serve a copy of this application, together with a copy of the supplementary affidavit on the opposite party by Speed Post with A/D. However, from the affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner on April 25, 2017 it was not clear whether the opposite party had received the copy of the application forwarded to him and, as such, this Court directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the application, together with a copy of the supplementary affidavit and the orders passed in this application on the learned advocate representing the opposite party, in the matrimonial suit, before the learned Court below. Today, when this application is taken up for hearing an affidavit-of-service has been field on behalf of the petitioner wherefrom it appears that copies of the application, the supplementary affidavit were served upon the learned advocate representing the opposite party, in the matrimonial suit, before the learned Court below. However, none appears for the opposite party to oppose this application. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that after being compelled to leave the matrimonial home, she is presently residing at Kalna in the district of Burdwan and she is facing great hardship to contest the matrimonial suit before the Curt of the learned District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore by travelling the long distance of about 150 kilometers, each way, between her present residence at Kalna and the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore. The aforementioned ground urged by the petitioner remains uncontroverted by the opposite party. In any event, I am satisfied that the aforesaid ground urged by the petitioner substantiates the prayer of the petitioner in this application. 5. The aforementioned ground urged by the petitioner remains uncontroverted by the opposite party. In any event, I am satisfied that the aforesaid ground urged by the petitioner substantiates the prayer of the petitioner in this application. 5. For the reasons as aforesaid, the Matrimonial Suit No. 62 of 2016 (Jayanta Halder v. Suparna Halder), is withdrawn from the Court of the learned District Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore and the same is transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Kalna, Burdwan. 6. The learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas is directed to forthwith transmit all the records of the Matrimonial Suit No. 62 of 2016 (Jayanta Halder v. Suparna Halder) to the Court of the learned District Judge, Burdwan who shall, in turn, transmit the same to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Kalna. 7. With the above directions, CO 723 of 2017 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.