JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. P.K. Deka, Mr. K.K. Dey, Mr. C. Baruah, Mr. M.R. Adhikary, Mr. M. Dutta, Mr. R. Sarma, Mr. B. Sinha, Mr. R.C. Paul, Mr. S. Alim, Mr. P.P. Borthakur, Mr. K.R. Patgiri, Mr. H. Sarma, Ms. N. Upadhyay, and Mr. S. Islam, the learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners herein. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate, Mr. S. Kataki, Mr. S.K. Borkataki,

Mr. A.D. Choudhury, Mr. P. Sen, Ms. D. Borgohain, Ms. S. Kanungoe, Mrs. S. Barpatragohain, Mr. A Ganguly, Mr. S.D. Purkayastha, and Mr. B. Pushilal, the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents herein.

2. These petitions have been filed under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, by which cases relating to matrimonial disputes and/or Guardianship dispute pending in various courts are sought to be transferred from one District to another.

3. The reason for hearing all the matters together was deemed necessitated in view of the recent judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Veni Nagam vs. Harish Nagam reported in (2017) 4 SCC 150. This judgment has been circulated to this Court by the Registry of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It would be relevant to refer to paragraphs -13 to 20 thereof, which is extracted below:

“13. We have considered the above suggestions. In this respect, we may also refer to the doctrine of forum non conveniens which can be applied in matrimonial proceedings for advancing interest of justice. Under the said doctrine, the court exercises its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings at a forum which is considered not to be convenient and there is any other forum which is considered to be more convenient for the interest of all the parties at the ends of justice. In Modi Entertainment Network and anr. v. W.S.G. Cricket Pte. Ltd.[(2003) 4 SCC 341] this Court observed:

“19. In Spiliada Maritime case [Spiliada Maritime Corpn. V. Cansulex Ltd., (1986) 3 All ER 843: 1987 AC 460 : (1986) 3 WLR 972(HL)] the House of Lords laid down the following principle: “The fundamental principle applicable to both the stay of English proceedings on the ground that some other forum was the appropriate forum and also the grant of leave to serve proceedings out of the jurisdiction was that the court would choose that forum in which the case could be tried more suitably for the interest of all the parties and for the ends of justice……”

The criteria to determine which was a more appropriate forum, for the purpose of ordering stay of the suit, the court would look for that forum with which the action had the most real and substantial connection in terms of convenience or expense, availability of witnesses, the law governing the relevant transaction and the places where the parties resided or carried on business. If the court concluded that there was no other available forum which was more appropriate than the English court, it would normally refuse a stay. If, however, the court concluded that there was another forum which was prima facie more appropriate, the court would normally grant a stay unless there were circumstances militating against a stay. It was noted that as the dispute concerning the contract in which the proper law was English law, it meant that England was the appropriate forum in which the case could be more suitably tried.”

Though these observations have been made in the context of granting anti suit injunction, the principle can be followed in regulating the exercise of jurisdiction of the court where proceedings are instituted. In a civil proceeding, the plaintiff is the dominus litis but if more than one court has jurisdiction, court can determine which is the convenient forum and lay down conditions in the interest of justice subject to which its jurisdiction may be availed. [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 6 SCC 254, para-30].

14. One cannot ignore the problem faced by a husband if proceedings are transferred on account of genuine difficulties faced by the wife. The husb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document