GAHC010255622025 2026:GAU-AS:1695 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./82/2025 SMTI BIJAY LAXMI GUPTA WIFE OF SHRI ANUP KANU,DAUGHTER OF SHRI KAMAKHYA PRASAD GUPTA,RESIDENT OF BETJAN ROAD, MAKUMP.O. P.S.- MAKUM, PIN786170, DISTRICT.- TINSUKIA,ASSAM.

VERSUS SHRI ANUP KANU SON OF LATE MUKTI NATH KANU,RESIDENT OF DHODANG GAON, P..-

NUMALIGARH, P.S.- KAMARGAONPIN- 785615, DISTRICT.-

GOLAGHAT,ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K GUPTA, MS M NIROLA,MR. R S MISHRA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A GANGULY, MR. A DUTTA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

Date : 09-02-2026 Heard Ms. M. Nirola, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking transfer of Title Suit (M) No.07/2025 pending in the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Golaghat, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Tinsukia.

3. The transfer is sought primarily on the ground that the petitioner wife is presently residing at Tinsukia with her parents along with her minor son and that it would be difficult for her to attend the proceedings at Golaghat.

4. The parties were married on 04.12.2017 according to Hindu rites and customs and thereafter, resided together as husband and wife at Golaghat. Out of the wedlock a male child was born on 14.02.2020. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties, pursuant to which the petitioner wife left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents at Tinsukia. The respondent husband thereafter instituted a suit for divorce at Golaghat being Title Suit (M) No.07/2025.

5. Ms. M. Nirola, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is residing with her aged parents along with her minor son at Tinsukia and does not have any independent source of income. It is contended that she finds it difficult to travel alone to Golaghat to attend the proceedings, particularly, while taking care of her minor child. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sumita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay & Anr., reported in 2014 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 11 and of this Court in Pallavi Saikia (Bharali) Vs. Mriganka Bharali, reported in 2006 2 GLR 135, to contend that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife deserves due consideration.

6. Per contra, Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner wife has already engaged a counsel of her choice before the District Court at Golaghat and has also filed her written statement. It is further submitted that the proceedings are pending before the District Court and not the Family Court and therefore, the personal appearance of the petitioner is not required on every date. It is also submitted that the petitioner wife has already filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance and litigation expenses, which is pending consideration before the District Court at Golaghat. He also submits that the respondent is willing to comply with any reasonable direction regarding expenses for the petitioner’s appearance, if required. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197 and of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Dipali Das Baidya Vs. Partha Baidya, in Tr.P. (C) 65/2021 and Sagarika Paul Vs. Rupak Sarkar, in Tr.P. (C) 22/2024, to contend that transfer petitions must be decided by balancing the convenience of both parties.

7. I have given my due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record.

8. It is well settled that in matrimonial proceedings, particularly, those initiated by the husband, the convenience of the wife is an important and relevant consideration. At the same t