Disposed¶23

Mallika Das (Dutta) @ Mallika Das v. Uttam Kumar Dutta

Calcutta HC9 Apr 2025CO/226/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C.O. 226 of 2024; High Court at Calcutta, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench; Bibhas Ranjan De, J.; Section 24 CPC transfer application; Section 25 Guardians and Wards Act 1890; Misc (Guardianship) Case No. 14 of 2024; transfer from Cooch Behar to Siliguri/Jalpaiguri; convenience of wife; distance 141 km vs 40 km; Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay (2002) AIR (SC) 396; minor daughter Sanjukta Dutta; Mallika Das v. Uttam Kumar Dutta; order dated 09.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Misc (Guardianship) Case No. 14 of 2024 transferred from the Court of the Learned District Judge, Cooch Behar to the Court of the Learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri, to be heard by him himself or assigned to the appropriate Court; Department directed to communicate the order to the District Judge, Cooch Behar. ¶23

Mallika Das (Dutta) @ Mallika Das Vs Uttam… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether Misc (Guardianship) Case No. 14 of 2024 pending at Cooch Behar should be transferred to Siliguri/Jalpaiguri in view of the convenience of the petitioner-wife and her minor daughter.

¶12

Court's answer

The grounds mentioned in the transfer petition were held sufficient, and Misc (Guardianship) Case No. 14 of 2024 was ordered transferred from Cooch Behar to Siliguri.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Convenience test satisfied on distance: Cooch Behar-Jalpaiguri is almost 141 kilometres whereas Siliguri-Jalpaiguri is 40 kilometres, making attendance at Siliguri/Jalpaiguri more convenient for the petitioner/wife than at Cooch Behar.

¶20

Key takeaways

The court adopted the principle of the Apex Court in Sumita Singh that the convenience of the wife is the governing consideration in such transfer matters.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer of guardianship case - Section 24 CPC application by wife allowed in effect: Misc (Guardianship) Case No. 14 of 2024, instituted by the husband under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking declaration as guardian of the person of his minor daughter Sanjukta Dutta and her custody, transferred from the Court of the Learned District Judge, Cooch Behar to the Court of the Learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri. Ground: petitioner-wife resides at Siliguri with the minor daughter (Class-I student); Cooch Behar-Jalpaiguri distance is almost 141 km against 40 km between Siliguri and Jalpaiguri; court applied the Apex Court principle in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, (2002) AIR (SC) 396, focusing on the convenience of the wife. Opposite party absent despite notice. Single Judge: Bibhas Ranjan De, J. Order dated 09.04.2025; revisional application disposed of.

21 09.04. 2025

Ct 3

RUP

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

¶5

C.O. 226 of 2024

¶6

Smt. Mallika Das (Dutta) @ Mallika Das

¶7

Vs Sri Uttam Kumar Dutta

¶8

Mr. Amit Sinha, Mr. Bikash Singha.

¶9

… For the petitioner.

¶10

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be taken on record.

¶11

None appears on behalf of the opposite party in spite of receiving notice.

¶12

The instant application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed with a prayer for transfer of Misc (Guardianship) Case No. 14 of 2024 filed by the opposite party/ husband who is a resident of 1 No. Kalighat Raod, Near Purba Guriahati School, P.OGuriahati, Police Station-Kotwali, District:Cooch Behar.

¶13

According to petitioner she is a house wife, resident of Medical More, Kwakhari, P.O:- Shushrut Nagar, Police Station-Matigara, District: Darjeeling. According to petitioner distance between Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri is almost 141 kilometers and her daughter is also student of Class-I of a school namely Sarada Sishuteertha Ghogomali, Telipara, Siliguri.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶15

¶16

petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a resident of Siliguri and her child is also Class-I student and her daughter is also residing with her at Siliguri. Since they were driven out by the opposite party, her husband.

¶17

From the record, it appears that the opposite party/husband filed the suit under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 with a prayer for declaring him as guardian of the person of his minor daughter namely Sanjukta Dutta as well as for the custody of the minor.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied on a case of Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another reported in (2002) AIR (SC) 396 in support of his prayer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶19

I have gone through the principle enunciated in the judgment of Sumita Singh (supra), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court focused on the convenience of wife.

¶20

In the case at hand, there is hardly any dispute that the distance between Cooch Behar and Jalpaiguri is almost 141 kilometers. On the other hand, distance between Siliguri and Jalpaiguri is 40 kilometers which is more convenient for the petitioner/wife to attend the court than the Court at Cooch Behar.

¶21

In the view of the matter, the grounds mentioned in the petition are sufficient in support of transfer of Misc (Guardianship) Case No. 14 of 2024 from Cooch Behar to Siliguri.

¶22

¶23

As a sequel, the Misc (Guardianship) Case No. 14 of 2024 pending before the Court of Learned District Judge, Cooch Behar shall stand transferred to the Court of Learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri, who shall hear it himself or assign it for hearing before the appropriate Court.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation, the revisional application stands disposed of.

¶25

Department is directed to communicate this order to the Learned District Judge, Cooch Behar, for compliance.

¶26

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.

¶27

All parties shall act on the server copies of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

¶28

(Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)

Mallika Das (Dutta) @ Mallika Das v. Uttam Kumar Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallika Das (Dutta) @ Mallika Das v. Uttam Kumar Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujit Sharma@Sujeet Sharma Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Insan Sk @ Md. Inachan Sk Vs the State of West Bengal

Rajeswari Sarkar and Ors. Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Paromita Bose (Koley) Vs Kalyan Koley

Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Limited Vs Ajijur Rahaman @ Rahman and Ors.

Ajijur Rahaman @ Rahman and Ors. Vs Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.