SANJANA BHADURI Vs. RAJIB DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the opposite party on 30th June, 2013 according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Purulia. After marriage both the parties started residing at Midnapur in the official quarters of the opposite party. Prior to her marriage the petitioner was an employee of Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences. After marriage the petitioner came to know that the opposite party is habituated to liquor. She had a marriage prior to the marriage with the petitioner and the said marriage was dissolved by a decree of mutual divorce. After marriage the petitioner left her job. When she was staying with the opposite party the petitioner found that the opposite party is a habitual drinker. He regularly takes anti psychotics medicines and sometimes he behaved in utterly perverse manner. Even the opposite party did not hesitate to take objectionable photographs of his wife. When the opposite party insisted her to take the profession of modeling with some unknown persons and thereafter demanded money from her paternal home to repay his car loan etc. the opposite party left her matrimonial home and took shelter at her paternal home in Purulia. She filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which was registered as Misc. Case No. 142 of 2018 and the same is pending for disposal. The opposite party filed Matrimonial Suit No. 100 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for restitution of conjugal rights. It is pleaded by the petitioner that she has again joined her service to maintain his livelihood. For the sake of her service she is residing in Kolkata. Her paternal home is at Purulia. Distance between Paschim Medinipur and Purulia is about 245 K.Ms. in one way. It takes about five hours to reach Medinipur from Purulia. Therefore, on the ground of distance as well as the other proceeding being pending in Purulia, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the instant matrimonial suit to the Court of the learned District Judge, Purulia. It appears from the record that the opposite party entered appearance and on the prayer of the opposite party he was allowed to file affidavit-in-opposition against the instant application. However, the opposite party has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition and today he remains unrepresented when the matter is taken up for hearing.

(2.) I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner that since other proceedings between the parties are pending at Purulia Court the matrimonial suit ought to be transferred to Purulia following the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejalben -Vs.- Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari, 2016 3 SCC 69. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that though the petitioner is working at Kolkata if the suit is transferred to Purulia she can avail of the opportunity to take the help of her father and other paternal relations to take step in the said suit. Whenever it is required it will be convenient for the petitioner to go to Purulia and stay at her paternal home to contest the said suit. Therefore, the instant suit should be transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Purulia.

(3.) Having heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on careful perusal of the application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the documents annexed thereto, I find that in the proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act the opposite party has already entered appearance. Therefore, following the principle of Tejalben (supra) I am inclined to allow the application filed by the petitioner. As a result Matrimonial Suit No. 100 of 2019 now pending before the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur be transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Purulia for trial and disposal.