The court considered the convenience and inconvenience factors of the wife in attending the Court and applied the principle of 'showing leniency towards the wife' in allowing the transfer of the Matrimonial Suit.

ORDER

1. Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names appearing in the cause title.

2. Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the opposite party after service of copy, is taken on record.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner/wife preferred this revisional application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No.12 of 2022 pending before the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Coochbehar to any other Court of Additional District Judge at Siliguri.

4. In short, the case of the petitioner is that her marriage with the respondent/opposite party was solemnized on 11.03.2020 and they stayed together as husband and wife in the house of the opposite party at Coochbehar for 15 days. The opposite party filed the Matrimonial suit under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner praying for a decree of divorce as a counter blast of the F.I.R. lodged by her. The Matrimonial Suit being No.12 of 2022 is now pending before Learned Additional District, Fast Track Court, Coochbehar. The petitioner has contended that she is residing with her mother at Siliguri and has no earning of her own. On the contrary, the husband is employed.

5. It is further contended that the distance between her residence at Siliguri and Coochbehar Court is about 155 kilometers and it takes five and half hours to travel this distance for her to attend the Court in time. According to the petitioner she is facing hardship due to pendency of the suit at Coochbehar Court, more for the reason that it is expensive for her to bear the cost of travelling.

6. Further case of the petitioner is that the relationship between the wife and her husband is strained and she feels insecure to travel to Coochbehar Court for the purpose of taking part in the proceedings. She apprehends that the opposite party may physically assault her. On such grounds the petitioner prayed for transfer of the Matrimonial Suit from Coochbehar to any other competent Court at Siliguri.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Saxena Vs. Pankaj Saxena; (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 158, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "The transfer has been sought by the wife on the ground that she has no source of income, she is completely dependent on relatives and she is not in a position to go from Rohtas to Ujjain which involves huge expenses. Even otherwise this court has been showing leniency towards the wife." Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case Hon'ble Court directed transfer of the Matrimonial Suit from the Family Court of Ujjain to the Court of District Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi; (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 237. Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case found that wife's petition for transfer of matrimonial case from Panvel, Mumbai to Satna (M.P.) on the ground that she was staying there with her brother and neither she nor her brother had financial capacity to contest the petition at Mumbai and held that in such cases convenience of the wife to be preferred over that of the husband.

9. In reply learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that O.P. is a contractual worker, having work for 26 days with a marginal monthly income and is also suffering from Cardiac ailments which requires immediate surgery. Learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the petitioner has voluntarily left the matrimonial home within 15 days of the marriage and the present suit for divorce has been filed on the ground of cruelty. Regarding transfer of the case it is contended that there is conveyance facility to conveniently travel to Coochbehar and the petitioner has no cogent ground for preferring this revisional application a