SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 30

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Navashree Chhetri v. Anup Shekhar Chakraborty
Mat. Suit No.32 of 2016



Court emphasized the convenience of the petitioner in marital cases concerning jurisdiction and transfer.

Headnote:This case involves an application under S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the transfer of a matrimonial suit due to jurisdictional issues and convenience. The petitioner argues that the marriage was solemnized in Darjeeling, asserting that the South 24 Parganas court lacks jurisdiction. The court finds in favor of the petitioner's request for transfer to Darjeeling, emphasizing that the wife's convenience is paramount. As a result, the matrimonial suit is to be transferred to the District Court at Siliguri.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks transfer based on jurisdiction and convenience. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. court emphasizes the importance of the wife's convenience in matrimonial proceedings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court decides to transfer the suit to facilitate convenience for both parties. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the affidavit - in - reply in course of hearing. Let it be kept with the record.

2. This is an application under S.24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter C.P.C.) filed by the wife petitioner praying for transfer of a matrimonial suit being Mat. Suit No.32 of 2016 filed by the husband opposite party against her presently pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas to the Court of the learned District Judge, Darjeeling.

3. It is ascertained from the application under S.24 of the C.P.C. that the opposite party was a full time lecturer of St. Joseph's College, Darjeeling. The petitioner was also a part time lecturer of Darjeeling Government College. Intimacy grew up between them and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs in Darjeeling on 26th February, 2015. After marriage both the petitioner and the opposite party started residing together in a rented accommodation in Darjeeling as husband and wife. However, the petitioner's stay as wife of the opposite party at her matrimonial home in Darjeeling was not happy. The opposite party was quarrelsome. He used to pick up quarrel on trivial issues of the petitioner. Some other allegations regarding impotency of the opposite party were also made by the petitioner in the instant petition.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that on or between 17th December, 2016 both the opposite party and the petitioner came to Kolkata in the paternal home of the opposite party. Subsequently, the husband of the petitioner refused to return to Darjeeling on the pretext of his personal job. All on a sudden the petitioner came to know that the opposite party has filed a suit for divorce which was registered as Mat. Suit No.32 of 2016, presently pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 16th Court at Alipore.

5. The petitioner has prayed for transfer of the said matrimonial suit from Alipore to Darjeeling on the following grounds amongst others: -
(i) The father of the petitioner has expired due to heart attack mainly because of matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the opposite party.
(ii) The petitioner has been living in Darjeeling with her old mother and younger sister. Brother of the petitioner works as a tour operator and mostly he does not stay in their house.
(iii) The petitioner earns paltry sum as salary as a part time lecturer and her job has not been regularized as yet.
(iv) Marriage of the petitioner was solemnized in Darjeeling. They stayed together for the last time in Darjeeling. No cause of action arose in Kolkata or within the jurisdiction of the learned District Judge, Alipore. So, the learned District Judge, Alipore lacks jurisdiction to try the suit.
(v) The petitioner will suffer financial hardship and physical distress, if she is compelled to travel between 800 kilometers from Darjeeling to Alipore to contest the said matrimonial suit.

6. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the said suit.

7. Though the opposite party entered appearance in the instant proceeding and filed affidavit - in - opposition he remains unrepresented when the matter is taken up for hearing today.

8. However, it is pertinent to note that on perusal of the affidavit - in - opposition, it is found that the opposite party had tendered resignation from his service as a lecturer of St. Joseph's College, Darjeeling and the said resignation was accepted by the authority.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who submits to the tune of the averment made in the petition under S.24 of the C.P.C.

10. It is strenuously contended by the learned c














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top