MAJOR PARTHA PRATIM DUTTA Vs. ARUNDHATI DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the husband and is directed against the order no.3 dated February 26, 2009 passed by the learned Principal Judge-in-Charge, Family Court, Calcutta in Matrimonial Suit No.4 of 2009.

(2.) THE husband filed the said suit for a decree of divorce against the opposite party before the learned Family Judge at Pune under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. That suit was subsequently transferred to the Family Court at Calcutta and renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No.4 of 2009. At present, the petitioner is posted at the college of Military Engineering, Pune and for that reason, he filed the said suit at Pune. Since, it was difficult for the opposite party to attend the Court at Pune, she filed an application before the Honble Apex Court for transfer and accordingly, the said suit was transferred to the Family Court at Calcutta. THE petitioner contends that it is very difficult for him to leave from his office on a regular basis to attend the Court at Calcutta and for that reason, he wanted to be represented by a learned Advocate. That application was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

(3.) THUS, I find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for appointment of an advocate on behalf of the husband. The Court has also assigned reasons in support of its findings and if I say the same, it will be a nothing but a repetition of the same. The Trial Court is perfectly justified in rejecting the prayer for appointment of an advocate on behalf of the husband. So, there is no ground for interference. The learned Trial Judge has not failed to exercise his jurisdiction.