Mridul Chandra Sarma @ Mridul ... vs Sutrishna Sarma
2022 Latest Caselaw 2473 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010059502019




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./20/2019

            MRIDUL CHANDRA SARMA @ MRIDUL SARMA
            S/O. LT. SUREN SARMA, R/O. BARNALI PATH, NANDANPUR, JAPORIGOG,
            GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781005.



            VERSUS

            SUTRISHNA SARMA
            D/O. MRIDUL CHANDRA SARMA, R/O. VILL. BAMPARBATIA,
            BAMUNCHUBURI, P.O. AND P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM-784001.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR A D CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. A DEVI (LEGAL AID COUNSEL)

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

25.07.2022

Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. C. Biswas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

This is an application under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the CPC for transfer of Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.34/2018 pending before Page No.# 2/4

the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent is the daughter of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and one Smti. Manisha Sarma got dissolved vide the judgment dated 24.07.2003 passed in Title (D) No.16/2001, by the District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur wherein the petitioner was directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,000/- to Manisha Sarma and the petitioner has paid the same and he had been paying Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondent till 04.03.2018, i.e. till the date the respondent attained majority. Thereafter, the respondent on 01.08.2018 at the instigation of Smti. Manisha Sarma, her mother, preferred an application being Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.34/2018 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur under Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that upon receipt of the notice, in connection with Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.34/2018, the petitioner appeared in the said case and filed his written statement.

It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and he is undergoing treatment at Dispur Hospital, Ganeshguri and that doctor has advised him to go for Angiography and Angioplasty and further advised to avoid long journey. It is alleged that the petitioner has been receiving constant threat from the mother of the respondent and that though the respondent is well aware about the health condition of the petitioner but in order to harass him, the Page No.# 3/4

respondent has instituted the said Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.34/2018 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. Under such circumstances, the petitioner prays for transferring the Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.34/2018 pending before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur to the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and perusal of the records, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds assigned in the instant application are not sufficient for the purpose of transferring the said Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.34/2018 from the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur to the Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. More so, as per Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 the jurisdiction to decide the case in the district of Kamrup (Metro) would be the Principal Judge, Family Court.

The difficulties so mentioned in the said application seeking transfer, in the opinion of this Court as stated herein above, is also not justifiable taking into consideration that the petitioner can very well engage an advocate to appear on his behalf in the said Court at Sonitpur, Tezpur and it is only on one or two occasions when his personal presence would be required, then he can very well appear before the said Court in person.

Consequently, this Court finding no justifiable ground for which this Court dismisses the instant petition.

The interim order dated 21.10.2019 whereby the further proceeding Page No.# 4/4

of the Misc. (Maintenance) Case No.34/2018 was stayed, is hereby vacated and the parties are directed to appear before the Court on 24.08.2022 either by themselves or by their engaged counsel.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant