CHANDANA HANSDA (MURMU) Vs. ANIL HANSDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party as plaintiff filed Other Suit No.13 of 2019 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia, Purba Medinipur praying for declaration that the defendant is not her legally married wife and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demanding the plaintiff as her husband. The defendant of the said suit has filed the instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating, inter alia, that her marriage was solemnized with the opposite party on 29th 'Jaistha', 1424 B.S. as per tribal ritual. Subsequently, the petitioner was tortured at her matrimonial home and she was driven out therefrom. She lodged a complaint before the Officer-in-charge, Chandrakona Police Station. On the basis of which a case under Section 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the opposite party and his relatives. Police investigated into the case and filed charge sheet in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ghatal. The petitioner also filed an application invoking various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court of the learned ACJM, Ghatal and the learned Magistrate passed an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the petitioner. However, the opposite party refused and neglected to pay such maintenance allowance to the petitioner. In the meantime, the opposite party filed O.S. No.13 of 2019 against the petitioner praying for declaration that the petitioner is not the legally married wife of the opposite party and permanent injunction. The petitioner has prayed for transfer of the said suit to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Garbeta in the district of Paschim Medinipur on the ground that she resides within the jurisdiction of Garbeta Court. Haldia Court is situated at a distance of about 120 kilometres from her place of residence and she is facing inconvenience to contest the said suit at Haldia mainly due to distance. It is also urged by the petitioner that she never stayed within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Haldia and the opposite party has filed the suit in a Court which lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that two other proceedings between the parties are pending at Ghatal Court and, therefore, the opposite party will not suffer any inconvenience if the above numbered suit is transferred to Ghatal.

(3.) Learned advocate for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner already entered appearance in the said suit on 27th June, 2019. As she failed to file written statement, the suit is fixed for ex parte hearing on 13th November, 2019. Thus, the suit has reached the stage of evidence. At this stage, it will not be appropriate to allow the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention the learned advocate for the opposite party refers to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelam Bhatia versus Satbir Singh Bhatia reported in (2004) 13 SCC 436. Coming to the instant case it is submitted by the learned advocate for the opposite party that as the petitioner failed to file written statement in spite of opportunity being given to her the suit is fixed for ex parte hearing. At this stage the principle laid down in Neelam Bhatia (supra) is squarely applicable in the instant case.