NEHA DUBEY Vs. GAUTAM KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the C.P.C.) filed by the wife/petitioner praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No.3296 of 2017 from the 1st Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Serampore, Hooghly to the Court of learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas at Alipore or any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Alipore.

(2.) In her application, it is stated by the petitioner that she has been residing at her paternal home at Chetla within the jurisdiction of Alipore District Judge's Court. Her husband, the opposite party herein, has filed the above numbered matrimonial suit at Serampore. The petitioner contends that there is a possible threat perception if she attends Serampore Court. She apprehends humiliation and possible physical torture upon her by the opposite party. Secondly, the petitioner states that in order to attend Serampore Court from Chetla, she will have to travel at least for two hours by train from Howrah Station. Therefore, on the dates on which she would require to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Serampore, she would have to travel for more than four hours to attend the hearing and back. Thirdly, it is pleaded by the petitioner that she has been residing presently with her father who is aged about 60 years. It is not possible for her old father to escort her to Serampore Court. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for transfer of the matrimonial suit to Alipore.

(3.) Mr. Avik Ghatak, learned advocate for the petitioner after making his submission to the tune of what has been pleaded in the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C, draws my attention to the affidavit-in-opposition by the opposite party against the aforesaid application. Referring to Annexure P-2 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the opposite party has tried to make out a case that the petitioner is a working lady and when she does not find any difficulty to travel from Chetla to Salt Lake to attend her duties, she may not have any difficulty to attend Serampore Court as well. However, the petitioner has filed a letter addressed to her by her employer, Annexure R-1 of the affidavit-in-reply, which shows that the petitioner has already tendered resignation from her service. It is also pointed out by Mr. Ghatak, learned advocate for the petitioner that the opposite party out of retaliation lodged a complaint against the petitioner at Serampore Police Station making allegation under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of which Serampore P. S. Case No.379 of 2017 was registered. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, institution of the said criminal case making specific allegation touching the character of the petitioner goes to suggest that the relationship between husband and wife is absolutely inimical. The apprehension of the petitioner of being harassed and humiliated if she attends Serampore Court cannot be brushed aside.