Disposed¶23

Nandita Biswas v. Krishanu Samanta

Calcutta HC8 Jul 2026CO/4301/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transfer of matrimonial suit; wife's convenience; minor child aged 5 years; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (Supreme Court, 2022); Paschim Medinipur to Nadia at Krishnanagar; virtual appearance liberty; District Judge; Calcutta High Court; CO 4301 of 2024; Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 36 of 2024 from the Court of the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur to the Court of the learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar, with liberty for the opposite party to seek virtual appearance; copy of the order to be sent to the concerned Courts for immediate compliance. ¶23

Nandita Biswas Vs Krishanu Samanta — Matrimonial and Divorce | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether Matrimonial Suit No. 36 of 2024 (Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955), pending before the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, should be transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar, given the petitioner/wife's residence at Krishnanagar, District Nadia, with her child aged about 5 years and the difficulty of travelling regularly to Paschim Medinipur.

¶20

Court's answer

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (Civil Appeal No(s). 4894 of 2022, decided July 18, 2022, Paras 11-12) and considering the petitioner/wife's difficulty of travelling regularly to Paschim Medinipur with her five-year-old child, the Court directed that Matrimonial Suit No. 36 of 2024 be withdrawn from the Court of the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur and transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar shall proceed with the transferred suit in accordance with law, with due notice upon both parties.

¶21

Key takeaways

Keeping in mind the case of the opposite party (husband), the learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar was left at liberty to permit the opposite party to appear virtually if such a prayer is made.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer of matrimonial suit on the wife's convenience — CO 4301 of 2024 (order dated 08.07.2026): Nandita Biswas (petitioner/wife) v. Krishanu Samanta (opposite party/husband). The revisional application prayed for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 36 of 2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, instituted by the husband before the learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur, to the Court of the learned District Judge, Krishnanagar. The petitioner/wife resides at Krishnanagar, District Nadia, with her child aged about 5 years, while the husband resides at Daspur, District Paschim Medinipur. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (Civil Appeal No(s). 4894 of 2022, arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 16465 of 2021, decided July 18, 2022, Paras 11-12), Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. directed that the suit be withdrawn from Paschim Medinipur and transferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar, to proceed in accordance with law with due notice upon both parties; the transferee Court was given liberty to permit the husband to appear virtually on request. None appeared for the opposite party. CO 4301 of 2024 was accordingly disposed of, parties to act on the server copy, with a copy of the order sent to the concerned Courts for immediate compliance.

¶1

¶2

08.07.2026 Item No.26 Court No. 30 skg

CO 4301 of 2024

Nandita Biswas

-vs-

Krishanu Samanta

Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Adv.

¶8

Mr. Kiran Sk. Adv. Mr. Sayed Hossain, Adv.

¶9

Mr. Jamiruddin Sk. Adv.

¶10

… for the Petitioner

¶11

1.Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record.

¶12

2.None appears for the opposite party.

¶13

3.The revisional application has been preferred by the petitioner/wife praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit no. 36 of 2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 from the Court of learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur to the Court of learned District Judge, Krishnanagar.

¶14

4.On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the Matrimonial Suit No. 36 of 2024 has been filed in

¶15

the Paschim Medinipur Court, by the husband/opposite party herein.

¶16

5.The petitioner/wife herein resides with her child aged about 5 years at Antarik Abason, Baranosi Rai Road, P.O. Krishnanagar, P.S. Kotwali, DistrictNadia.

¶17

¶18

¶19

6.On the other hand the husband/opposite party is residing at Vill-Baramara, P.O. Kantadaraja, P.S. Daspur, District-Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101.

¶20

7.Considering the said difficulty of the petitioner/wife to travel to Paschim Medinipur, on regular basis, having a child of 5 years, this Court relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, in Civil Appeal No(s). 4894 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 16465 of 2021), decided on July 18, 2022, (Para 11, 12), directs that Matrimonial Suit no. 36 of 2024 be withdrawn from the Court of learned District Judge, Paschim Medinipur and be transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar.

¶21

8.The Learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law with due notice upon both the parties.

¶22

9.Keeping in mind the case of the opposite party herein, the learned District Judge, Nadia at Krishnanagar shall be at liberty to permit the opposite party to appear virtually, if such prayer is made.

¶23

10.Accordingly, CO 4301 of 2024 is disposed of.

¶24

11.Parties to act on the server copy of this order.

¶25

12.Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Courts for immediate compliance.

¶26

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)

¶27

Nandita Biswas v. Krishanu Samanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandita Biswas v. Krishanu Samanta

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

Musa Karim Molla Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Aniruddha Banerjee Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Ii/ Recovery Officer and Ors.

Pampa Parial Bhandari Vs Sankar Bhandari @ Shanku and Another

Punam Mondal Vs Rajesh Mondal

Sumera Mondal Vs Abdul Latif Mondal

Sulagna Chatterjee Vs Rajdip Chatterjee