SWAGATA DAS Vs. SUBRATA NASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party has filed the Matrimonial Suit No.526 of 2018 praying for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Baruipur, South 24 Parganas. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for transfer of the said suit to Barrackpore in the district of North 24 Parganas on the ground that the petitioner has been residing at Bijpur at her paternal home. She has a child aged about three years. She is employed in a school at Naihati as a teacher. The opposite party, on the other hand, is an employee of Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal and presently posted at Asansol. He filed the above numbered matrimonial suit at Baruipur. The petitioner will face inconvenience to contest the suit at Baruipur. So, the suit may be transferred to the Court of the competent jurisdiction at Barrackpore.

(2.) The opposite party has filed affidavit-in-opposition denying all allegations made out in the application by the petitioner. It is stated by the opposite party that after the marriage the petitioner and the opposite party resided together at Baruipur before she left her matrimonial home along with her minor child. Therefore, Baruipur Court is having jurisdiction to try the matrimonial suit between the parties. The suit was filed in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge at Baruipur. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opposite party that the petitioner entered appearance in the said suit and filed written statement. The suit is now pending for framing of issues. At this stage, the suit cannot be transferred to any Court at this stage. In support of his contention the learned advocate for the opposite party relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neelam Bhatia versus Satbir Singh Bhatia, 2004 13 SCC 436.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the above mentioned report by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the application under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure by directing the respondent /husband to bear travelling expenses of the petitioner of the wife and one person accompanying her to attend the proceedings and also to bear incidental expenses of the petitioner and another person beside the arrear maintenance as ordered by the trial Court. Thus in Neelam Bhatia (supra) the Supreme Court disallowed the petitioner's application for transfer of matrimonial suit from Korba, Chattisgarh to Kolkata on the ground that the respondent was agreeable to bear the travelling expenses of the petitioner and one of her associates from Kolkata to Korba. The respondent also agreed to clear off arrear maintenance to be paid to the petitioner by him.