The Calcutta High Court had in one of its recent judgement, ruled out in a petition filed under Section 24 of CPC that if such transfer is sought by a wife during the course of matrimonial proceedings, the Court should, while deciding the petition, take into consideration the inconvenience caused to her.

The Court's observation came out in Sanchayita Deb (Guha) v Susanta Deb.

The judgement so delivered has made it clear that if the transfer is sought by a wife in a matrimonial suit, (in)convenience of the wife to attend Court proceedings will be an important factor in deciding the same.

WHAT'S SPECIAL IN THE JUDGEMENT?

The verdict by the view of it is contradictory to a former observation made by the High Court that states that the mere inconvenience of wife to attend the Court is not a ground to transfer a matrimonial suit to another court.

This judgement was delivered last year, in Dipika Agarwal v. Rishi Agarwal.

The High Court had ruled:

 "Simply because the wife feels inconvenient to attend Court at Alipore is no ground for withdrawal of Matrimonial Suit from the Court at Alipore and to transfer it in the district of Birbhum."

CASE IN HAND

The Petitioner-wife, in the present case, had sought transfer of a divorce petition, filed by her husband in Jalpaiguri, to Durgapur, where she lived with her parents. It was contended by her that the distance between Durgapur and Jalpaiguri being more than 600 km, wasn't financially feasible for her. She pleaded that it was too expensive on her account to complete the journey.

The High Court while allowing the petition, had observed:

"she has no income of her own. She is fully dependent upon her parents. The opposite party has not paid any maintenance for his wife and the son. Under such circumstances, the petitioner will, of course, suffer inconvenience to travel Jalpaiguri from Durgapur which is situated at a distance of about 600 km away in one way."

The High Court also allowed her plea to transfer the child custody petition filed by her husband.

To this, the Court relied on Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Court observed:

"In the instant case, the minor child of the parties ordinarily resides at Durgapur with his mother. He is a student of Bidhan School, Durgapur. Therefore, the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Durgapur has jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 to try the said miscellaneous case. Moreover, for the benefit of the minor child, the said miscellaneous case ought to be transferred to Durgapur for hearing and disposal."

What Section 9(1) of the GWA states?

"If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides."

The judgement has been delivered by Justice BIBEK CHAUDHURI on 10-01-2020.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :