Back
2004 Supreme(Gau) 315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Amitava Roy, J.
Sanjay Jalan - Appellants
Vs.
Sunita Jalan - Respondent
TrP (Cri) No.(s) 18, 14 of 2002, TrP (Cri) No.1 of 2003, TrP(C) No. 14 of 2003 and Cri. Revision No. 743 of 2003
Decided On: 06.05.2004
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Matrimonial Disputes
Headnote
Martial Discord - Jurisdictional Provisions - Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, Section 13 - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 125, 178, 179, 181(4), 482 - The judgment discusses the transfer of matrimonial and criminal proceedings, jurisdictional provisions, and the legal principles governing the transfer of cases. The court analyzes the allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, and criminal intimidation, and interprets the relevant legal provisions to determine the jurisdiction of the courts. The court allows the transfer of the matrimonial proceeding to Dibrugarh based on the wife's inconvenience and dependency on her parents, while rejecting the transfer of other criminal proceedings and maintenance case.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment discusses the marital discord between the parties, including allegations of cruelty, dowry demands, and criminal intimidation. The husband filed for divorce, and the wife filed for maintenance and criminal cases against the husband and his father. The husband and his father sought transfer of the criminal proceedings from Dibrugarh to Guwahati, while the wife sought transfer of the matrimonial proceeding from Guwahati to Dibrugarh. The court heard the arguments and analyzed the jurisdictional provisions to determine the appropriate venue for the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife's request for transfer of the matrimonial proceeding to Dibrugarh was justified based on her inconvenience, lack of income, and dependency on her parents. The court rejected the transfer of other criminal proceedings and the maintenance case, as well as the husband's request for transfer, based on the jurisdictional provisions and the balance of convenience for the parties.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the transfer of matrimonial and criminal proceedings, jurisdictional provisions under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and the Criminal Procedure Code, and the convenience of the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions, the balance of convenience for the parties, and the paramount consideration of the ends of justice. The court allowed the transfer of the matrimonial proceeding to Dibrugarh based on the wife's inconvenience and dependency on her parents, while rejecting the transfer of other criminal proceedings and the maintenance case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the transfer of the matrimonial proceeding to Dibrugarh, while rejecting the transfer of other criminal proceedings and the maintenance case. The court directed the parties to present themselves before the District Judge, Dibrugarh, for further orders.
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.K. Goswami, G.N. Sahewalla, M. Aslam and P. Bora, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: A. Goswami, K. Agarwal, M. Buzarbaruah and R.J. Barua, Advs.
Amitava Roy, J.
1. This batch of petitions sadly demonstrates how stray episodes of martial discord not resolved in time may lead to wasteful litigations. The parties bitterly posed with their steeled stances seek transfer of each other's proceedings to the place of their convenience. The husband's father has also joined the fray, praying for quashment of the criminal prosecution launched against him. The matters were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. I have heard Mr. GN Sahewala, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. AK Goswami, Mr. P Bora, Mr. M. Aslam, Advocates for Shri Sanjay Jalan the husband and his father Shri Biswanath Jalan as well as Mr. K Agarwal, Advocate assisted by Ms M Buzarbaruah, Mr. R.J. Barua, Mr. A Goswami, Advocates for the wife Mrs. Sunita Jalan.
3. The prefatory facts would be necessary to comprehend better the issues involved and the rival contentions. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 28.1.2000 at Gauahati and a son out of the wedlock was, born on 12.9.2001. The wife has alleged-cruelty, both physical and mental by the husband and his family members. She was subjected to dowry demands for non-fulfillment of which had to face ill treatment. She has also alleged an attempt on her life by administering poison pointing out the accusing finger towards the husband. According to her, on 26.4.2002, she was driven out of her matrimonial home; de hors her belongings as well as the stridhan, which were illegally retained by the husband and his family members. The wife, in the circumstances, claims, is lodging with her parents at Dikom in the District of Dibrugarh. These allegations, however, have been stoutly denied by the husband and his father Shri B. Jalan. But it is admitted that the parties are living separately on and from 26.4.2002 and that the wife is presently residing with her parents at Dikom.
4. Before the parties embarked on their litigious trail, an advocate's notice was issued on 13.8.2002, on behalf of the husband, requiring the wife to return the jewellery, cash etc. and also the child. It was alleged, therein, that the wife from the very inception of marriage had displayed incompatible nature and non-cooperative attitude, was disrespectful to her parents-in-law and quarreled with them and other family members without any rhyme or reason. She attempted to commit suicide by consuming insecticide with the nefarious design of inculpating the husband and his family members in criminal actions. It was further alleged that she left her matrimonial home for good taking with her huge amount of cash and jewellery.
5. This notice was duly replied to by the wife on 6.9.2002. While reiterating her allegations against the husband and his family members, it was asserted that she was turned out of the nuptial home following severe assaults on 26.4.2002 and that her belongings and stridhan given to her in marriage by her parents were retained by her husband and his family members illegally. A demand was made in the notice to preserve the said properties lest she be compelled to initiate appropriate legal actions as the husband was attempting to dispose of the same for wrongful gain.
6. In this background, the husband took the first plunge on 7.9.2002. He filed a petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Guwahati, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 (herein after referred to as the Marriage Act) seeking dissolution of the marriage, primarily on the ground of cruelty. The allegations made in the notice dated 13.8.2002, were recited afresh. The proceeding was registered as FC (Civil) 229/02 and notice was issued therein.
7. On 1/10/2002, the wile filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, claiming monthly maintainers of Rs. 10,000 for her and the minor son. Notice was also issued, in this proceeding. It was registered as case No. 38M/2002.
On the very same date the wife also lodged a
