SUSMITA PRAMANIK Vs. BHAKTIPADA PRAMANIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for transfer of a matrimonial suit being No.385 of 2012 now pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Hooghly at Chandannagar to the Court of learned Additional District Judge Barrackpore North 24 Parganas under Section 24 of the Code Civil Procedure.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has made out a case that the petitioner, a 40 years old lady, residing in her father's house Noapara, Ichapore, within North 24 Parganas district, after being driven out from her matrimonial home by her husband, completely dependent upon her father, is not in a position to contest the pending matrimonial suit at Chandannagar effectively and most conveniently and after undertaking a journey for about 1 hours. Thus according to petitioner, there is no direct communication from her paternal house for reaching most conveniently to Chandannagar Court. Petitioner has to travel by vessel to cross river Ganges for catching trains, which remains always overcrowed causing serious inconvenience to her part to travel to Chandannagar undertaking such a break journey.

(3.) Learned lawyer for the opposite party has contended that Noapara Ichapore is situated at a distance of 7.5 Km. away (approx). from Chandannagar Court, and which is well connected. The alleged harassment likely to cause for undertaking the journey is devoid of strong reasons. According to opposite party, there is nothing mentioned in the petition itself about the reasonable apprehension that justice will be denied to petitioner in the event of the case being proceeded at Chandannagar Court, without which the proposed transfer is without any reasonable basis. The further contention of opposite party/ wife/husband is that petitioner being an unsounded lady, she was not authorised to swear an affidavit in connection with a proceeding under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the absence of any next friend being appointed for and on behalf of the unsounded mind wife/petitioner in application of provisions of Order 32 Rule 15 of CPC. The opposite party thus has challenged the maintainability of the instant proceeding.