Allowed

Abida Khatun v. Sihab Uddin

Gauhati HC5 Sept 2022Tr.P.(C)./3/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a transfer application under Section 24 CrPC, moving family court custody proceedings from Guwahati to Karimganj. The court held that the distance, petitioner's difficulty with three children, and respondent's local presence justified the transfer.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings transferred from Family Court-II Guwahati to Court of District Judge, Karimganj; records to be transferred forthwith.

Abida Khatun Vs Sihab Uddin — Child Custody and Guardianship | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010006162020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./3/2020

¶5

ABIDA KHATUN

¶6

W/O. MD. SIHAB UDDIN, D/O. ABDUL WAHAB, VILL. HADARGRAM, WATIR ALI ROAD, WARD NO.22, P.O. KARIMGANJ BAZAR, P.S. KARIMGANJ, DIST. KARIMGANJ, PIN-788711, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SIHAB UDDIN

¶9

S/O. LT. ABDUL KADIR, VILL. KANHARA, P.O. TUKRAPARA, P.S. CHHAYGAON, DIST. KAMRUP (R), PIN-781137, ASSAM.

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K BISWAKARMA

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N UDDIN

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 05.09.2022

¶15

Heard Ms. B. Devi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. N. Uddin, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party.

¶16

This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

¶17

Page No.# 2/4

¶18

1908 read with Section 151 praying for the transfer of Misc. (G) Case No.194/2019 arising out of F.C. (Civil) Case No. 1055/2019 from the learned Family Court-II, Kamrup (M) to the Court of District Judge at Karimganj.

¶19

The case of the Petitioner is that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party was solemnized socially on 06.04.2011 in Karimganj and both of them were living happily as husband and wife in the matrimonial house in Karimganj. The Opposite Party is working as a Teacher in Mohimari Title Madrassa, Goroimari (Kamrup-Rural) and as such the Petitioner was taken to Guwahati.

¶20

The Petitioner alleged that the Opposite Party demanded Rs.3,00,0000/as he was not satisfied with the articles received at the time of marriage from her house. The Petitioner informed him that it is not possible on her part to bring such a huge amount from her father’s house as there is no male member in her family to help her. Being annoyed with this, the Opposite Party started harassing her both physically and mentally and pressurized her to bring that amount. As the demand was not fulfilled, the opposite party driven out the Petitioner from her matrimonial house.

¶21

The Petitioner further states that while the married life of the Petitioner was going on, in the midst of problems she was blessed with three children and was staying at her parents house with her 3 children in Karimganj. In the month of December, 2019, the Petitioner received a notice from the learned Family Court-II, Kamrup (M) vide Misc. (G) Case No.194/2019 arising out of F.C. (Civil) No.1055/2019 which was filed by the Opposite Party under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 praying for the custody of the three minor children. However, it is stated that the Petitioner has already filed two cases vide C.R. No.1672/2019 under Sections 498/323 of the Indian Penal Code and Misc.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

(A) No.459/2019 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Court of Hon’ble CJM at Karimganj on 04.12.2019 and on 11.12.2019 respectively. The Opposite Party came to know about the initiation of the cases by the Petitioner and as such he filed the instant case i.e. Misc. (G) Case No.194/2019 at Guwahati only to harass the Petitioner both mentally and monetarily.

¶24

It has also been mentioned that the Opposite Party is a Government Servant and earning a huge amount of money every month and as such he has no inconvenience to contest the case at Karimganj. Moreover, in civil cases presence of party is not mandatory on each and every date but in the event of pending the instant custody case before the Family Court, the presence of party is mandatory and as such it will not possible on the part of the Petitioner to move to Guwahati on each and every date with three minor children.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Taking into consideration that the Petitioner has expressed difficulties in her participation in the proceedings at Guwahati as she is a lady with three children and has no source of income and on the other hand the Opposite Party is a Government servant has a regular source of income and further to that, the distance between Karimganj to Guwahati is very long, this Court is of the opinion that if F.C.(Civil) Case No.1055/2019 is being transferred from Guwahati to Karimganj, the Opposite Party will not be prejudiced as his permanent residence is at Karimganj itself and he would be able to attend the said Court either by himself or through counsels.

¶26

Accordingly, the proceedings in F.C. (Civil) Case No. 1055/2019 alongwith Misc. (G) Case No.194/2019 is transferred from the learned Family Court-II Kamrup (M), Guwahati to the Court of District Judge at Karimganj.

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

The learned Family Court-II Kamrup (M), Guwahati, is directed to forthwith transfer the records to the Court of District Judge at Karimganj.

¶29

Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court of District Judge, Karimganj on 28.10.2022 and on which date the Petitioner shall file her written statement without fail.

¶30

The Registry is directed to intimate both the Courts below about this order. Interim order dated 20.01.2020 stands vacated.

¶31

With above observations and directions, the instant petition stands allowed and disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Abida Khatun v. Sihab Uddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abida Khatun v. Sihab Uddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Th Eiff Ko-Tokio General Insurance Co. Vs Mst Asmani Begum and 4 Ors.

Advent Multi Services Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs Nanak Deka

Johirul Islam , Vs the Chief Branch Manager and 2 Ors.

Rashmi Gowalla Sahu Vs Kiran Sahoo

Izaz Ahmed and Anr. Vs Md. Sunam Ali and 2 Ors.

Gopal Ch. Mazumdar Vs Sumitra Chanda