JUDGMENT : SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J. 1. This is an application for transfer of a matrimonial suit being No.385 of 2012 now pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Hooghly at Chandannagar to the Court of learned Additional District Judge Barrackpore North 24 Parganas under Section 24 of the Code Civil Procedure. 2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has made out a case that the petitioner, a 40 years old lady, residing in her father’s house Noapara, Ichapore, within North 24 Parganas district, after being driven out from her matrimonial home by her husband, completely dependent upon her father, is not in a position to contest the pending matrimonial suit at Chandannagar effectively and most conveniently and after undertaking a journey for about 1½ hours. Thus according to petitioner, there is no direct communication from her paternal house for reaching most conveniently to Chandannagar Court. Petitioner has to travel by vessel to cross river Ganges for catching trains, which remains always overcrowd causing serious inconvenience to her part to travel to Chandannagar undertaking such a break journey. 3. Learned lawyer for the opposite party has contended that Noapara Ichapore is situated at a distance of 7.5 Km. away (approx). from Chandannagar Court, and which is well connected. The alleged harassment likely to cause for undertaking the journey is devoid of strong reasons. According to opposite party, there is nothing mentioned in the petition itself about the reasonable apprehension that justice will be denied to petitioner in the event of the case being proceeded at Chandannagar Court, without which the proposed transfer is without any reasonable basis. The further contention of opposite party/ wife/husband is that petitioner being an unsounded lady, she was not authorised to swear an affidavit in connection with a proceeding under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the absence of any next friend being appointed for and on behalf of the unsounded mind wife/petitioner in application of provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC. The opposite party thus has challenged the maintainability of the instant proceeding. 4. This is a case where petitioner got her married with opposite party on 8th December, 2010. She received torture, insult, humiliation and cruelty, both physically and mentally, in the hands of her husband, alleging her to be an unsound minded woman, a mentally challenged person. The opposite party thus has challenged the maintainability of the instant proceeding. 4. This is a case where petitioner got her married with opposite party on 8th December, 2010. She received torture, insult, humiliation and cruelty, both physically and mentally, in the hands of her husband, alleging her to be an unsound minded woman, a mentally challenged person. The petitioner waited for long time with a high hope and ultimately she was driven out. One fine morning, she received a notice and came to know about the matrimonial proceeding being imitated by her husband/opposite party against her with a prayer for divorce. Petitioner wife wants to contest the case. She seeks transfer apprehending harassment likely to cause to her for undertaking a break journey involving wastage of 1½ hours in the absence of any direct connectivity from her paternal house to Chandannagar Court. Admittedly, petitioner has been residing in her parental house at Noapara, Ichapore within the district of North 24 Parganas. There is a river intervening the house of petitioner, and that of the place, where the matrimonial suit is instituted at Chandannagar Court. 5. Argument has been advanced submitting for on behalf of the petitioner, that convenience of the wife should be taken to be of paramount consideration in the instant case seeking transfer under the provisions of Section 24 of the CPC. Further argument has been raised by the petitioner that the petition seeking transfer is an outcome of unskilled drafting of learned advocate filing this case, for which the ultimate prayer of the petitioner should not be brushed aside. 6. The provision contained in Order 32 CPC provides for suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind. Relying on a decision reported in 2011(8) SCC 539 delivered in the case of Ethiopian Airlines vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo emphasis has been supplied by the revisionist submitting that the instant application seeking transfer comes within the meaning of proceedings, and suit having included proceedings in its ordinary sense, the provisions contained in Order 32 Rule 15 would be applicable in this case. Thus according to learned advocate for the opposite party, the instant proceeding is not maintainable for the petition proposing to transfer having filed by a lady, which is admittedly unsound mind and further the affidavit in support of the proceeding having been sworn by woman, who is also admittedly unsound mind. 7. Thus according to learned advocate for the opposite party, the instant proceeding is not maintainable for the petition proposing to transfer having filed by a lady, which is admittedly unsound mind and further the affidavit in support of the proceeding having been sworn by woman, who is also admittedly unsound mind. 7. True it is that a suit is always taken to include all the proceedings of a judicial or quashi-judicial nature, in which disputes of the aggrieved party is adjudicated before an appropriate forum. In that view of the matter, the instant application seeking transfer comes within a meaning of proceedings. 8. It would be profitable her to refer Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure which may be mentioned hereunder. “15. Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) to apply to persons of unsound mind. – Rules 1 to 14 (except rule 2A) shall, so far as may be, apply to persons adjudged, before or during the pendency of the suit, to be of unsound mind and shall also apply to persons who, though not so adjudged, are found by the Court on enquiry to be incapable, by reason of any mental infirmity, of protecting their interest when suing or being sued.” 9. The provisions contained in Rule 15 under Order 32 will be applicable in a case where a person has already been adjudged as unsound mind, or where though not so adjudged, is found by the Court on enquiry, to be incapable by reason of any mental infirmity for protecting one’s own interest, when suing or being sued. It is not a case where the petitioner has already been adjudged to be an unsound mind lady. Enquiry, therefore, calls for so as to ascertain the extent of mental level/faculty being injured/impaired. It is, therefore without conducting an enquiry, as contemplated in Rule 15 of Order 32, it cannot be concluded with all certainty, that petitioner/wife seeking transfer is an unsound mind woman. 10. This is a case where simplicitor transfer has been sought for apprehending harassment, likely to cause therefor to petitioner in the event petitioner is made to undertake a break journey for coming to Chandannagar Court from her parental house in order to contest the case most conveniently. 10. This is a case where simplicitor transfer has been sought for apprehending harassment, likely to cause therefor to petitioner in the event petitioner is made to undertake a break journey for coming to Chandannagar Court from her parental house in order to contest the case most conveniently. It is given to understand in course of hearing that the prayer for divorce has been filed taking grounds one of which was unsoundness of mind of the petitioner/wife. The Court conducting trial in connection of matrimonial suit should be the competent authority to ascertain the extent of mental sufferings of the petitioner/wife in connection with a proceeding praying for divorce, otherwise there will be conflicting decisions or the findings of the proceeding may affect the ultimate decision of pending matrimonial suit. The Court is of the view that in connection with a prayer for proposed transfer simplicitor under Section 24 CPC, there lies least scope for a superior Court to conduct an enquiry itself as contemplated in Rule 15 of Order 32 CPC which is the prerequisite to ascertain the level of mental injury causing thereby to develop the mental infirmity. The point is thus, left open for determination by the Trial Judge of the matrimonial proceeding in terms of the provisions contained under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 11. Upon perusal of averments contained in the petition, it appears that there is nothing conspicuously mentioned regarding reasonable apprehensation of the petitioner that justice will be denied to her, in the event of trial being conducted at Chandannagar Court. The relative distance to be covered by the wife/petitioner to contest a case is a matter to be taken into account in a situation where necessary hardship is caused to a party in safely reaching to a place of destination. But how this distance will be covered by best possible and probable manner, is a matter of high importance. Admittedly there is a river intervening parental house of the petitioner/wife and that of the place, where matrimonial suit is admittedly pending at Chanadannagar Court. One can easily reach Noapara, Ichapore to Chandannagar Court exercising one’s best , possible probable and available options, particularly keeping in view the distance to be covered. Admittedly there is a river intervening parental house of the petitioner/wife and that of the place, where matrimonial suit is admittedly pending at Chanadannagar Court. One can easily reach Noapara, Ichapore to Chandannagar Court exercising one’s best , possible probable and available options, particularly keeping in view the distance to be covered. Therefore the distance to be covered by petitioner not being far off, so as to reach Chandannagar from her parental house, it cannot be concluded with all certainty that it will cause immense hardship/harassment to petitioner prejudicical to her interest, in undertaking such journey for the purpose of contesting a matrimonial suit, filed against the petitioner. More so Noapara, Ichapore is a place, where sufficient connectivity is there. It is for the wife/petitioner to exercise her own option best suited to her in order to reach Chandannagar from her paternal home most conveniently. The petition is, therefore, without any merits. The petition filed under Section 24 CPC praying for transfer is refused. 12. With this observation, the present case stands disposed of. 13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the appearing parties, if applied for, as expeditiously as possible upon compliance with all necessary formalities.