KRISHNA ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. RANJIT ROY CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the wife for transfer of Title (R) Suit No. 9/94 instituted by her husband in the Court of the learned District Judge, Nagaon for restitution of conjugal rights to the Court of the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh.

(2.) The ground taken by the petitioner-wife in the application for transfer is that she has no income of her own and lives presently with her parents and brothers at Dibrugarh after operation of a tumour on her body and she is not accustomed to travelling alone and that her father is 75 years old and is a heart patient and her two brothers are service holders busy in their respective jobs and are not in a position to escort the petitioner every time from Dibrugarh to Nagaon for the aforesaid Title Suit in the Court of the District Judge, Nagaon. The petitioner has further stated in the application for transfer that the opposite party husband is a Railway employee working and residing at Lumding and has to travel from Lumding to Nagaon to prosecute the aforesaid suit. Being a Railway employee, he also has a Railway pass and can travel from Lumding to Dibrugarh without any expenses. On these facts, Mr. B.C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a fit case in which this Court should transfer the aforesaid suit from the Court of the learned District Judge, Nagaon to the Court of the learned District Judge at Dibrugarh and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shakuntala Modi - Vs- Om Prakash Bharuka (AIR 1991 SC 1104) and the decisions of the different High Courts in Maya Choudhury -Vs- Sudhir Choudhury (1989) 1 GLR 41), Pritikona Banerjee -Vs- C.S. Rabi Shankar Banerjee (AIR 1987, Calcutta 269), C.S. Shyamala -Vs- C.S. Srikantaiah (AIR 1990 Karnataka 87) and Nanda Kishore -Vs- S.B. Shivprakash, AIR 1993 Karnataka 87 in which matrimonial cases have been transferred on the application of the wife on similar grounds.

(3.) An affidavit in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the opposite party wherein the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner for transfer of the suit from Nagaon to Dibrugarh has been opposed and it has been stated therein that the opposite party would suffer severe hardship and inconvenience to prosecute the suit at Dibrugarh if the same is transferred as he is a Railway employee working and residing at Lumding and he has to look after his ailing parents, besides the dependent brothers and sisters and cannot afford to stay away from his house or place of work for long and that all the witnesses on behalf of the opposite party are from Lumding. In affidavit in opposition, the opposite party has also offered to pay the expenses for the travel of the petitioner and one escort from Dibrugarh to Nagaon for the suit. Mr. K.K. Mahanta learned counsel for the opposite party cited relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Overseas Bank -Vs- Chemical Construction Co. (1979 4 SCC 358) and the decision of this Court in the case of Gift House, New Market, Dimapur Town and another -Vs-Mohanlal Mundra and ors. (1982) 1 GLR 13) and submitted that convenience and inconvenience of the parties cannot be a ground for transfer of a suit from one Court to another under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908.