Sonali Ghosh vs Avishek Banerjee
2023 Latest Caselaw 834 Cal

31.1.2023

Ct. no. 652 sb C.O. 2684 of 2022

Sonali Ghosh Vs.

Avishek Banerjee

Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati Mr. Ashok Halder Mr. Reshmi Mukherjee Mr. Sunayan Ghosh ...for the petitioner

Mr. Tanmoy Sett Ms. Sumana Biswas ...for the opposite partys

This is an application under Section 24 of the Civil

Procedure Code seeking transfer of the Matrimonial suit

being no. 1039 of 2022 pending before the court of

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-

II, Barasat, North 24 parganas to the court of learned

District Judge, Paschim Medinipore.

The petitioner contended that the marriage

between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu

Rites and customs. The petitioner alleged that during her

stay at her matrimonial home, the opposite party and his

family members inflicted torture upon her and such

torture was increasing day by day since the opposite

party husband and his relatives were not happy with the

quantity and quality of cash and articles brought by the

petitioner at the time of marriage and she further alleged

that they started pressurising her to bring more money

from her father. The petitioner lodged complain under

Section 498A/323/406/506/34 of the Indian penal Code

against the opposite party which is pending before the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garbera, Paschim

Medinipore. In the meantime, the opposite party has

initiated aforesaid proceeding for dissolution of marriage

which is pending before the Barasat Court. The opposite

party is an engineer employed at TCS and on the other

hand, the petitioner is a staff nurse and she is presently

posted at Purba Medinipore. The petitioner alleged that

owing to strained relationship between the parties, she is

apprehending if she travels from Garbeta to Barrackpore

in order to contest the said proceeding, the opposite

party and his men and agents may attempt to confine

the petitioners as the opposite party is a man of

considerable influence in the locality. She also

apprehends bodily hurt or some other gravious injury,

considering her previous experiences with her husband.

The petitioner further states that her parents are

the septuagenarian persons who are dependent upon

petitioner. The petitioner further submits that she wants

to contest the suit but considering the distance involved

between the two places which is more than 200

kilometres in one way, it has become extremely

inconvenient for her to attend the said proceeding at

Barasat court. Accordingly, she has prayed for aforesaid

transfer.

Learned counsel for the opposite party raised

objection contending that the opposite party is presently

residing at Baidyabati and as such if the prayer for

transfer is allowed, he will face difficulty in attending the

said proceeding. He further submits that grounds

assigned for the aforesaid transfer is not justified and the

petitioner's prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected. In

this context, he also relied upon a judgment of this court

by a coordinate bench reported in (2019) SCC Online Cal

994 and contended that mere inconvenience in travelling

to another place cannot be a ground for effecting

transfer.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and the distance involved between the two

places and that the other proceedings are pending in

court at Medinipore where the opposite party would be

required to attend and relying upon Apex court judgment

in NC.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Kartick Sha, 2022

Live Law (SC) 627, wherein it was held that in the

prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian

society, generally, it is the wife's convenience, which

must be looked at while considering transfer and that

the inconvenience caused to a female in travelling to

another place for pursuing her matrimonial suit through

public transportation, in the socio economic situation,

prevailing in country is much more than the

inconvenience that might be caused to the petitioner, the

prayer made by the petitioner is allowed. The facts and

circumstances of the case reported in (2019) SCC Online

Cal 994 is clearly distinguishable with the present case

since said proceeding relates to transfer of an Act VIII

case, where statute clearly creates jurisdiction of court

considering welfare of child under Section 9 of the

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

Learned District Judge, North 24 parganas,

Barasat is hereby directed to withdraw the Matrimonial

suit being no. 1039 of 2022 pending before the court of

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-

II, Barasat, North 24 parganas and to transmit the same

to the court of learned District Judge, Paschim

Medinipore for disposal within a period of three weeks

from the date of communication of the order.

The transferee court shall serve fresh notice upon

both the parties intimating the next date of hearing

before proceeding further with the aforesaid suit and

learned transferee court will continue the proceeding at

the stage where it reached till date.

The department is directed to send a copy of the

order to the learned District Judge, North 24 parganas

and learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipore

immediately.

Accordingly, C.O. 2684 of 2022 is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

requisite formalities.

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)