In transfer petitions under Section 24 of the CPC, the 'balance of convenience' between parties and the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings are paramount, especially when cases are interdependent and one party faces significant financial or physical hardship.

ORDER

Heard Mr. D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition, under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the CPC, is preferred by the petitioner for transferring Misc. G.C. Case No. 04/2022 and connected Misc. (J) Case No. 13/2023, with all the petitions, pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Bajali, to the Court of learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the wife of the sole respondent and they got married on 04.10.2015 as per social custom and rites and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife in the matrimonial home at Sarupeta, Patacharkuchi and out of their wedlock, one baby girl born to them. He further submits that thereafter, marital discord surfaced between them and ultimately the petitioner had to leave the matrimonial home, and since then she has been taking shelter, with their minor child, at her parental abode at Guwahti. Thereafter, petitioner had preferred the F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 589/2022, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the Principal Judge, Family Court, at Guwahati seeking maintenance from the respondent. Then the respondent has filed the Miscellaneous Guardianship Case No. 4/2022, before the court of learned District Judge at Bajali. The said guardianship certificate case has been filed in contravention to the jurisdictional statutory provision of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 as it ought to have been filed at the place where the child is residing. Mr. Das also submits that the petitioner is suffering from different health issues and also she has minor daughter and leaving her at Guwahati she cannot undertake travel to Bajali to contest the said petition and over and above she has no source of her income. Under such circumstances Mr. Das contended to allow this petition and the transfer the Miscellaneous Guardianship Case No. 4/2022, from the court of learned District Judge at Bajali to the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

3.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Das has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Shah , (Civil Appeal No (S), 4894 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP. (C)No(s) 16465 of 2021).

4. Per contra, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. Mr. Medhi submits that though no objection petition is filed by the respondent, yet the respondent is not in a position to concede to the prayer of the petitioner. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das , Transfer Petition Civil No.(S). 191 of 2005, with Transfer Petition (C) No.146 of 2005, Mr. Medhi submits that in the prevailing socio economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer, yet leniency cannot be considered always as the same is being misused by the women. He also submits that like the respondent in the aforesaid petition, the respondent herein also shall pay all travel and stay expenses of the petitioner and her companion for each and every occasion when she is required to attend the Court at Bajali. Under such circumstances Mr. Medhi has contended to dismiss this petition.

5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions referred by the parties.

6. Section 24 of the CPC provide