Tripura High Court
Dr. Amaresh Bhowmik vs (1) Mukta Begam on 20 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Tr.P.(Crl.) No.03 of 2025
Dr. Amaresh Bhowmik,
Son of Sri Rabindra Kumar Bhowmik,
Resident of Bajrabari, Garji,
P.O. & P.S.- R.K. Pur,
Udaipur, District- Gomati Tripura,
PIN-799125.
....Petitioner(s).
Versus
(1) Mukta Begam,
D/O- Dulal Miah,
Resident of Dataram, Bajrabari,
P.O.-Garji, P.S.- R.K. Pur,
Udaipur, District- Gomati Tripura,
PIN-799125.
(2)The State of Tripura,
Represented by Ld. P.P.,
High Court of Tripura,
Agartala.
.......Respondent(s).
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Bibek Banerjee, Adv.
Ms. Ruma Majumder, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P.
Mr. Sankar Lodh, Adv.
Date of Hearing
and delivery of
Judgment and Order : 20.09.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order (Oral)
Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Bibek Banerjee
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Learned
Counsel, Mr. Sankar Lodh appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.1 and Learned P.P., Mr. Raju Datta appearing
on behalf of the respondent No.2.
02. This present petition is filed under Section 447 of
BNSS, 2023 read with Section 407 of Cr.P.C. for transferring
the Criminal Case bearing No.Crl. Misc. 530 of 2024 along with
Crl. Misc.(Int) 532 of 2024 pending in the Court of Learned
Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura to the
Court of Learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura.
03. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. B.
Banerjee appearing for the petitioner drawn the attention of
this Court to Annexure-1 i.e. the application for granting of
maintenance where the respondent OP has shown her address
at Udaipur. Similarly, in connection with Case
No.P.R.C(SP)47/2024 in between the State of Tripura Vs.
Kakali Datta Dey and Others, the said respondent has shown
her address at Udaipur, Gomati District.
04. Learned Counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee appearing for the
petitioner further drawn the attention of this Court referring
the affidavit-cum-declaration of alleged marriage wherein the
respondent has shown her address at Bagarpara, Chandrapur,
District-Gomati Tripura and in the said affidavit it was also
stated that the alleged marriage of the parties under dispute
have been solemnized at Bajrabari, Garjee, Matabari, Udaipur,
District-Gomati Tripura.
05. Learned Counsel, Mr. B. Banerjee appearing for the
petitioner further submitted that the proceeding under Section
498A against the present petitioner is still pending at Udaipur
under Section 498A of IPC which appears from the document
i.e. Annexure-R/4 submitted by the respondent No.1. So, in
such a situation, it would be prudent that since the present
respondent OP is the permanent resident of Udaipur so the
aforesaid proceeding may be transferred from the Court of
Learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura to
Learned Judge, Family Court, Gomati District, Udaipur.
06. Learned Counsel, Mr. Banerjee again submitted that
the petitioner is a doctor and it would be inconvenient on his
part if the case remains pending at Agartala and since the
respondent is the permanent resident of Udaipur so it would be
convenient if the petition is allowed by transferring this case
from Agartala to Udaipur. In support of his contention, Learned
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon one citation of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Eluri Raji Reddy and Others and
State of Delhi and Another reported in (2004) 4 SCC 479
wherein in Para No.7, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as
under:-
"7.Having heard learned counsel for the parties, but
without expressing any opinion on the allegations and
counter-allegations made against one another, which are
sub judice in the main proceedings, we are of the opinion
that it will be for better convenience of the parties and in
the interest of justice if both the cases pending in the
Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi titled State of
Delhi v. Eluri Raji Reddy arising in FIR No.385 of 2000,
Parliament Street Police Station and petition under Section
125 CrPC for grant of maintenance filed by the respondent
wife pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate,
Patiala House, New Delhi tilted Eluri Manemma v. Eluri Raji
Reddy in CC No.75 of 2000 are transferred to a court of
competent jurisdiction at Hazurabad, Karimnagar district,
Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the transfer petitions filed
by the husband are allowed. Since we are transferring
both the cases filed by the wife, pending at New Delhi, to a
court of competent jurisdiction at Hazurabad, Karimnagar
district, Andhra Pradesh, Transfer Petition (Civil) No.342
of 2003 filed by her is dismissed. It is directed that both
the abovementioned cases pending in the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi shall stand transferred
to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar
District, Andhra Pradesh."
Referring the same Learned Counsel has submitted
that this present case is squarely covered by the said judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court. As such, the present petition filed
by the petitioner may be allowed for fair ends of justice.
07. The OP contested the proceeding by filing objection
denying the assertions of the petitioner. However, at the time
of hearing Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Lodh appearing on behalf of
the respondent No.1 drawn the attention of this Court that in
Para Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the petition, the petitioner has asserted
that the respondent No.1 is a married woman having a minor
son and her husband's name is Delowar Hossain and the
present respondent No.1 filed a maintenance case against her
husband which was dismissed for non prosecution.
08. It was further asserted that during subsistence of
her earlier marriage with one Delowar Hossain, the respondent
No.1 again married another person namely Ujjal Hossain of
Dataram under R.K. Pur P.S. Gomati District and for that she
was implicated in a criminal case under R.K. Pur P.S. vide
No.65 of 2024 under Section 325/384/34 of IPC and the said
case was registered on the basis of an FIR laid by one Smt.
Juthika Bhowmik on 28.02.2024 and in the said case charge-
sheet was submitted against the accused persons including the
respondent No.1 which was re-numbered as Case No.PRC(SP)
47 of 2024 and in Para-6, it was asserted that respondent after
the incident occurred on 28.02.2024 left Udaipur and took
shelter at Agartala. According to Learned Counsel for
respondent No.1, on and from that period she is staying at
Agartala and in support of his contention Learned Counsel
relied one citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Mst. Jagir Kaur and another Vs. Jaswant Singh reported in
1963 AIR(SC) 1521 wherein in Para No.6, Hon'ble the Apex
Court observed as under:-
"6. The first word is "resides". A wife can file a
petition against her husband for maintenance in a
Court in the District where he resides. The said word
has been subject to conflicting judicial opinion. In the
Oxford Dictionary it is defined as : dwell permanently
or for a considerable time; to have one's settled or
usual abode; to live in or at a particular place". The
said meaning, therefore, takes in both a permanent
dwelling as well as a temporary living in a place. It is,
therefore, capable of different meanings, including
domicile in the strictest and the most technical sense
and a temporary residence. Whichever meaning is
given to it, one thing is obvious and it is that it does
not include a casual stay in, or a flying visit to a
particular place. In short, the meaning of the word
would, in the ultimate analysis, depend upon the
context and the purpose of a particular statute. In this
case the context and purpose of the present statute
certainly do not compel the importation of the concept
of domicile in its technical sense. The purpose of the
statute would be better served if the word "resides"
was understood to include temporary residence. The
juxtaposition of the words "is" and "last resided" in
the sub-Section also throws light on the meaning of
the word "resides". The word "is", as we shall explain
later, confers jurisdiction on a Court on the basis of a
casual visit and the expression "last resided", about
which also we have something to say, indicates that
the Legislature could not have intended to use the
word "resides" in the technical sense of domicile. The
word "resides" cannot be given a meaning different
from the word "resided" in the expression "last
resided" and, therefore, the wider meaning fits in the
setting in which the word "resides" appears. A few of
the decisions cited at the Bar may be useful in this
context."
09. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 also
referred the provision of Section 126 of Cr.P.C. wherein it was
mentioned where to file the case. Referring the citation of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, Learned Counsel submitted that since the
respondent No.1 being the wife of the present petitioner is
residing at Agartala at present and considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of the principle of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, she has rightly filed the
case against the petitioner here at Agartala and at this stage
there is no scope to transfer the petition. Learned Counsel also
drawn the attention of this Court to the declaration of marriage
as relied upon by the petitioner and submitted that the said
affidavit was executed at Agartala which indicates that the
respondent is staying at Agartala at present.
10. Learned Counsel further referred Annexure-2, the
application for maintenance filed by the present respondent
against one Delowar Hossain and submitted that their marriage
has been dissolved by a Talaknama on 10.11.2019 which is
annexed in this petition and on and from date from that day
there is no marital bondage between the respondent and said
Delowar Hossain and since the present petitioner is a doctor by
profession and he is so influential that inspite of marrying the
respondent No.1 he is denying his relation with the respondent
No.1 and furthermore, referring order dated 13.08.2024
(Annexure-R/3) passed by Learned CJM, Gomati District,
Udaipur in PRC (WP) No.37 of 2024, Learned Counsel drawn
the attention of this Court that at his instance, the case was
sent for further investigation by the Learned CJM, Gomati
Judicial District, Udaipur.
11. Learned Counsel again drawn the attention of the
Court referring the order dated 16.07.2008 passed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi & Anr. Vs.
Dharmendra Kumar Gupta reported in 2008 (9) SCC 353
and submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the
submission of the wife-petitioner in that case. Similarly, in
another case decided on 26.02.2001 in Sumita Singh Vs.
Kumar Sanjay & Anr. reported in 2001 (5) SCC 667,
Hon'ble the Apex Court also considered the transfer petition
filed by the wife-petitioner. But, here in the case at hand, the
transfer petition is filed by the alleged husband and the
respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner who is denying his
marriage with her and he is a doctor by profession and if at
this stage the case is transferred then the respondent would be
prejudiced.
12. I have heard both the sides at length and perused
the petition filed by the petitioner and the objection submitted
on behalf of the respondents and also gone through the
documents relied upon by both the parties. It is the admitted
position that the respondent No.1 is presently staying at
Agartala for last few months. It is also the admitted position
that the respondent No.1 is the permanent resident of Udaipur
because in all the documents relied upon by the petitioner her
address has been shown at Udaipur.
13. Learned Counsel for the respondent OP in course of
hearing did not dispute that fact rather he admitted the same.
But relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court he
tried to draw the attention of the Court that the case will be
heard where the wife resides, may be for temporary period.
But, after going through the documents relied upon by the
parties it appears that there is still a criminal case pending
against the petitioner filed by the present respondent No.1
which is pending for disposal before the Court at Udaipur. The
permanent resident of the respondent No.1 is also at Udaipur.
Learned Counsel for the respondent OP at the time of hearing
failed to satisfy this Court that if the case is transferred at
Udaipur in that case she may face some bad consequences or
inconvenience or there will be inconvenience on her part to run
the case staying at Udaipur.
14. The present petitioner is also residing at Udaipur
and surveying as a doctor there. For the interest of public, his
service may be required at Udaipur and in that case it would be
inconvenient if the case remains at Family Court, Agartala. So,
after hearing both the sides and after going through the
petition, objection and the documents relied upon by the
petitioner, it appears to me that the respondent OP has failed
to rebut the claim of the present petitioner showing any cogent
materials to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner
regarding transfer of case from Agartala to Udaipur.
15. The citations relied upon by Learned Counsel for the
respondent No.1 although stands in favour of the wife-
petitioner but in those cases argument was made on behalf of
the wife-petitioner about her inconvenience to run the
proceeding to the respective places. But, here in the case at
hand, at the time of hearing no such grounds have been raised
by Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 that the
respondent No.1 would be seriously prejudiced if the case is
transferred. So, in absence of such materials this Court is not
in a position to disallow the application filed by the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the present
petitioner under Section 447 of BNSS is hereby allowed. The
criminal case bearing No.Crl. Misc.530 of 2024 along with
Misc.(Int) 532 of 2024 pending before the Court of Learned
Addl. Judge, Family Court, Agartala be transferred to Learned
Judge, Family Court, Udaipur. Learned Addl. Judge, Family
Court, Agartala be asked to transfer the aforesaid case to the
Court of Learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur on or before
02.11.2025 for disposal in accordance with law. Both the
parties accordingly be asked to appear before the Court of
Learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur on 02.11.2025.
With this observation, the instant transfer petition
stands disposed of. It is made clear that nothing is discussed
about merit of the case regarding allegation and counter
allegation of the parties. Simply the order for transfer of the
case is passed.
A copy of this order be transmitted to the Court of
Learned Addl. Judge, Family Court, Agartala for immediate
compliance and also a copy of this order be communicated to
Learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur for information. Further
supply a copy of this order to the Learned Counsels of both the
parties for information and necessary action, free of cost.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE
Amrita
AMRITA DEB Date: 2025.09.22 17:34:34
