Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 555 (GAU)

Monmayuri Borthakur v. Pranab Kumar Sharma

2020-06-05

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2020
ORDER : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. 1. Heard Ms. S. Nazneen, learned counsel for the petitioner wife. Also heard Mr. D.K. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent husband. 2. The petitioner and the respondent were married in Goalpara on 20.01.2014 as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Subsequently, a discord had arisen in the marriage between the parties resulting the respondent husband instituting FC (Civil) Case No. 137/2019 in the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati under Section 13(i)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner states that she is presently residing at Tinsukia and also has to bear the responsibility of a minor nursery school attending child. It is further stated that she is presently suffering from kidney ailment. In the resultant situation, this petition under Section 24 of the CPC is preferred for transferring the FC (Civil) Case No. 137/2019 from the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. n, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati to any Court of competent jurisdiction in the district of Tinsukia. 3. Mr. D.K. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent husband refers to Section 19(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which provides that a petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction where the parties to the marriage last resided together. We have taken note of that Section 19(H) provides that the place of presenting the petition can also be the place where the respondent at the time of presentation resides. No answer is forthcoming as to why Section 19(ii) cannot be invoked instead of Section 19(iii). 4. Be that as it may, the law in this regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. Although initially the view was that the convenience of the wife should be having a primary consideration in deciding the place where the divorce proceeding is to be initiated, but the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court shows that the leniency as regards the convenience of the wife may not be the only reason for seeking a transfer. But at the same time, the Supreme Court also provides that in the event, a transfer is refused there be a direction that the husband shall bear the travelling expenses and lodging of the wife and a companion. But at the same time, the Supreme Court also provides that in the event, a transfer is refused there be a direction that the husband shall bear the travelling expenses and lodging of the wife and a companion. In the circumstance, we put a question to the learned counsel for the respondent husband whether the husband is ready to bear the travelling expenses and the lodging expenses of the respondent wife along with a companion so that she can attend to the proceeding initiated by the respondent at Guwahati. Mr. DK Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent husband upon instruction states that the husband is unwilling to bear any such expenses and on the other hand in the circumstance he would be more agreeable to go to the place where the petitioner wife is residing for continuing with the divorce proceeding. 5. Ms. S. Nazneen, learned counsel for the petitioner wife states that the petitioner is presently residing at Tinsukia. Accordingly, we direct that the FC (Civil) Case No. 137/2019 in the Court of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati be transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge at Tinsukia, inasmuch as, there is no Family Court existing in the District of Tinsukia. 6. The Registry of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No. II, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati is directed to transmit the records of the FC (Civil) Case No. 137/2019 to the Court of the learned District Judge at Tinsukia forthwith. 7. Transfer petition stands disposed of in the above terms.