Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 222 (CAL)

Barnali Mazumdar v. Kalyan Mazumdar

2020-02-14

BIBEK CHAUDHURI

body2020
JUDGMENT Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the wife/petitioner praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No.377 of 2018 instituted by the opposite party/husband against her in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Kalyani at Nadia praying for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce for transfer to any other court of competent jurisdiction, near Ultadanga, Kolkata. 2. In her application, it is alleged by the petitioner that her marriage was solemnized with the opposite party on 3rd June, 2013 as per Hindu rights and customs at her paternal home at Ultadanga. After marriage, the petitioner went to her matrimonial home situated at Lalpur, within P.S Chakdah in the District of Nadia. They lived together as husband and wife in the said address. However, her marital life was not happy as the opposite party used to treat her with cruelty from the very beginning of her marriage. He used to abuse the petitioner on the quality of the bridal presents and used to torture her both physically and mentally. That on 13th January, 2018 the opposite party drove the petitioner out of her maternal home and since then she has been residing at her father's house and solely dependent upon her father. The relatives and well wishers of the paternal home of the petitioner tried to settle the dispute amicably but the opposite party was not agreeable in amicable settlement of the dispute. In the mean time, the petitioner got summons of the matrimonial suit. The petitioner has been residing at her father's house situated at 19/2F Ultadanga Road. She will suffer inconvenience to contest the suit at Kalyani regularly attending the said Court from Ultadanga. The parents of the petitioner are ill and cannot move freely. There is no other male member in the family of the petitioner to accompany her to attend the court of the learned Additional District Judge at Kalyani. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for transferring the said suit to a court of competent jurisdiction near Ultadanga and preferably in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah. 3. The opposite party entered appearance in the said suit. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for transferring the said suit to a court of competent jurisdiction near Ultadanga and preferably in the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah. 3. The opposite party entered appearance in the said suit. He has filed an application being CAN 4985 of 2019 on 11th June, 2019 praying for vacating the interim order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 10th April, 2019. It is stated by the opposite party that from the very beginning of her marriage with him, the petitioner was not ready to lead a peaceful conjugal life. She was reluctant to stay in the joint family of the petitioner of the opposite party and his brother. She wanted to stay separately with the opposite party away from the other family members at her matrimonial home. The petitioner has prayed for transfer of the matrimonial suit filed by the opposite party mainly on two grounds, viz, (i) She has been threatened by unknown person; (ii) she has no other able bodied male member in her family except her old ailing father to accompany the petitioner to attend Kalyani Court to contest the said suit. In order to support ground No.(i) the petitioner has annexed photo copy of a complaint made before the Inspector-in-Charge of Kalyani Police Station. In the said complaint she did not disclose any date of such alleged incident committed upon her by some unknown persons. Moreover, the petitioner has a younger brother residing at the same place and he can accompany the petitioner to Kalyani Court. The petitioner has suppressed the said fact and falsely pleaded that except her ailing father there is no other male member in her paternal home to accompany her to Kalyani Court. Thus, the averment made by the petitioner is out and out false and filed the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure on such false allegation. Therefore, opposite party has prayed for vacating the exparte interim order of stay of further proceeding in Matrimonial Suit No.377 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Kalyani. 4. Thus, the averment made by the petitioner is out and out false and filed the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure on such false allegation. Therefore, opposite party has prayed for vacating the exparte interim order of stay of further proceeding in Matrimonial Suit No.377 of 2018 pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Kalyani. 4. At the time of hearing of the above application, this court proposes the application to be treated as the written objection against the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the main application may be disposed of taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties to which the learned Advocates for both the petitioner and the opposite party have agreed. 5. From the pleadings of the parties as well as submission made by the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the opposite party, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been residing at her paternal house at 19/2F Ultadanga Main Road. The matrimonial relationship between the parties is not cordial. The opposite party has been staying at Ultadanga. She has stated that she will face inconvenience if she is compelled to contest the suit at Kalyani. 6. It is needless to say that in a proceeding under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of a matrimonial suit, paramount consideration is the convenience of the wife. For all practical purposes, the suit for divorce shall be heard by a Court which is conveniently situated for the petitioner. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi, (2005) 12 SCC 237 . This Court in Pampa Banerjee vs. Mridul Banerjee,2016 4 CalHN 18 Cal share the same view as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision. 7. In the instant case, even assuming that the petitioner has a younger brother, he cannot be compelled to accompany the petitioner daily to Kalyani to contest the suit for divorce leaving aside his own work. 8. For the reasons stated, I am inclined to allow the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. 7. In the instant case, even assuming that the petitioner has a younger brother, he cannot be compelled to accompany the petitioner daily to Kalyani to contest the suit for divorce leaving aside his own work. 8. For the reasons stated, I am inclined to allow the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The Matrimonial Suit No.377 of 2018 filed by the opposite party against the petitioner be transferred to the court of the learned Additional District Judge at Sealdah for trial and disposal from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Kalyani, Nadia. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent both the court below through the department for information and compliance. Urgent certified website copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.