Allowed

Sonali Ghosh v. Avishek Banerjee

Calcutta HC31 Jan 2023CO/2684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 24 CPC, the High Court transferred a matrimonial suit from Barasat to Medinipore court. The court held that the petitioner's convenience and safety, given the distance and apprehension of harm, outweighed the respondent's inconvenience, citing Apex Court jurisprudence on gender-sensitive transfers.

What did the court decide?

Order passed transferring matrimonial suit no. 1039 of 2022 from Additional District & Sessions Judge, Barasat to Dist. Judge, Paschim Medinipore.

Sonali Ghosh Vs Avishek Banerjee — Matrimonial and Divorce | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

31.1.2023 182 Ct. no. 652 sb

¶2

C.O. 2684 of 2022

¶3

Sonali Ghosh Vs. Avishek Banerjee

¶4

Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati Mr. Ashok Halder Mr. Reshmi Mukherjee Mr. Sunayan Ghosh …for the petitioner Mr. Tanmoy Sett Ms. Sumana Biswas …for the opposite partys

¶5

This is an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking transfer of the Matrimonial suit being no. 1039 of 2022 pending before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtII, Barasat, North 24 parganas to the court of learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipore.

¶6

The petitioner contended that the marriage between the parties was solemnised according to Hindu Rites and customs. The petitioner alleged that during her stay at her matrimonial home, the opposite party and his family members inflicted torture upon her and such torture was increasing day by day since the opposite party husband and his relatives were not happy with the quantity and quality of cash and articles brought by the petitioner at the time of marriage and she further alleged that they started pressurising her to bring more money

¶7

¶8

from her father. The petitioner lodged complain under Section 498A/323/406/506/34 of the Indian penal Code against the opposite party which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garbera, Paschim Medinipore. In the meantime, the opposite party has initiated aforesaid proceeding for dissolution of marriage which is pending before the Barasat Court. The opposite party is an engineer employed at TCS and on the other hand, the petitioner is a staff nurse and she is presently posted at Purba Medinipore. The petitioner alleged that owing to strained relationship between the parties, she is apprehending if she travels from Garbeta to Barrackpore in order to contest the said proceeding, the opposite party and his men and agents may attempt to confine the petitioners as the opposite party is a man of considerable influence in the locality. She also apprehends bodily hurt or some other gravious injury, considering her previous experiences with her husband.

¶9

The petitioner further states that her parents are the septuagenarian persons who are dependent upon petitioner. The petitioner further submits that she wants to contest the suit but considering the distance involved between the two places which is more than 200 kilometres in one way, it has become extremely inconvenient for her to attend the said proceeding at Barasat court. Accordingly, she has prayed for aforesaid transfer.

¶10

¶11

Learned counsel for the opposite party raised objection contending that the opposite party is presently residing at Baidyabati and as such if the prayer for transfer is allowed, he will face difficulty in attending the said proceeding. He further submits that grounds assigned for the aforesaid transfer is not justified and the petitioner’s prayer for transfer is liable to be rejected. In this context, he also relied upon a judgment of this court by a coordinate bench reported in (2019) SCC Online Cal 994 and contended that mere inconvenience in travelling to another place cannot be a ground for effecting transfer.

¶12

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the distance involved between the two places and that the other proceedings are pending in court at Medinipore where the opposite party would be required to attend and relying upon Apex court judgment in NC.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Kartick Sha, 2022 Live Law (SC) 627, wherein it was held that in the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience, which must be looked at while considering transfer and that the inconvenience caused to a female in travelling to another place for pursuing her matrimonial suit through public transportation, in the socio economic situation, prevailing in country is much more than the inconvenience that might be caused to the petitioner, the

¶13

¶14

prayer made by the petitioner is allowed. The facts and circumstances of the case reported in (2019) SCC Online Cal 994 is clearly distinguishable with the present case since said proceeding relates to transfer of an Act VIII case, where statute clearly creates jurisdiction of court considering welfare of child under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

¶15

Learned District Judge, North 24 parganas, Barasat is hereby directed to withdraw the Matrimonial suit being no. 1039 of 2022 pending before the court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtII, Barasat, North 24 parganas and to transmit the same to the court of learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipore for disposal within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the order.

¶16

The transferee court shall serve fresh notice upon both the parties intimating the next date of hearing before proceeding further with the aforesaid suit and learned transferee court will continue the proceeding at the stage where it reached till date.

¶17

The department is directed to send a copy of the order to the learned District Judge, North 24 parganas and learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipore immediately.

¶18

Accordingly, C.O. 2684 of 2022 is disposed of.

¶19

¶20

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶21

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.)

Sonali Ghosh v. Avishek Banerjee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonali Ghosh v. Avishek Banerjee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirapada Hazra and Others Vs Sekh Sarfuddin and Others

Nirapada Hazra and Others Vs Sekh Sarfuddin and Others

Antika Mitra Vs Dipsankar Sinha

Swarnali Seal Sadhu Vs Saumyajit Seal

Soumendu Adhikari Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Susmita Chakraborty Vs Jaybrata Chakraborty