Shantana (Chakraborty) Bhattacharjee Vs Rajarshi Chakraborty

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010185032025

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:6482

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./54/2025

¶6

SHANTANA (CHAKRABORTY) BHATTACHARJEE W/O SRI RAJARSHI CHAKRABORTY, D/O LATE SASHANKA SEKHAR BHATTACHARJEE, R/O HOUSE NO. 49, DESHABANDHU ROAD, RANGIRKHARI, SILCHAR, P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

RAJARSHI CHAKRABORTY S/O LATE GOPAL CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY, R/O VILL- SALEBARI (SRINAGAR), BADARPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.- BADARPUR, DISTSRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN-788806

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R D GUPTA, MS. SASWATI KAR

¶10

Advocate for the Respondent : MR A K PAUL, MS D CHAUDHURY

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

BEFORE

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER

¶14

11/05/2026

¶15

Heard Ms. S Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. D Chaudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶16

2. By filing this transfer petition under Section 24 of the CPC, the petitioner, who is the estranged wife of the respondent, seeks transfer of the matrimonial proceedings, being Title Suit (Divorce) No. 35/2025, from the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Sribhumi to the learned Family Court at Cachar, Silchar.

¶17

3. The petitioner claims to be an unemployed person, suffering from tuberculosis. She also claims that the minor child of the parties, who was born on 06.11.2014, is under her care. It is further projected that the petitioner has not been provided with any financial aid or maintenance and accordingly, projects a case for transfer of the proceedings.

¶18

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is suffering from 40% Locomotor disability and BRVO (i.e., Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion) of right eye-30% with partial optic atrophy in the left eye, with deficit OSL (i.e., Optically Stimulated Luminescence) of 40% and the total disability has been assessed by the Joint Director of Health Services, Karimganj at 71% and in the Disability Certificate issued in Form-IV (under Rule 4 of the Persons with Disability Act). It is also submitted that the distance between the two places, where the case sought to be transferred, is very small and the daily expenses would not exceed Rs.70/-. Further, the respondent has

¶19

Page No.# 3/5

¶20

assessed the financial capacity of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has been able to approach this Court by engaging counsel and filing this application.

¶21

5. It is to be stated that the other submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides relate to merits of the pending litigation between the parties and therefore, the Court does not deem it appropriate to record the same or to give any opinion thereon, as these are matters to be decided by the learned Trial Court.

¶22

6. The only issue that arises before the Court is as to whether it would be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 24 of the CPC to transfer the proceedings from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sribhumi to the learned Family Court at Cachar, Silchar.

¶23

7. The matter was called in the first half and the Court desired that the learned counsel for the respondent should take instructions from the respondent as to whether he is ready and willing to pay maintenance.

¶24

8. In this regard, the matter was taken up again in the second half, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that she has no instructions regarding the payment of maintenance. However, it is submitted that the issue regarding maintenance is pending for adjudication before this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 68/2024.

¶25

9. It is also submitted that as per her instructions, the notice in the said criminal petition has been duly served on the petitioner, which is evident from the office note dated 18.03.2024. However, it is submitted that the petitioner has not yet appeared despite due service of the notice.

¶26

Page No.# 4/5

¶27

10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already filed her Vakalatnama in the matter.

¶28

11. Be that as it may, as it is admitted that the petitioner is not being paid any maintenance till date and she is also the caregiver of the minor child of the parties, that being the position, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

12. The plea taken by the respondent that the financial capacity of the petitioner was doubted on account of the fact that the petitioner approached this Court is not a justifiable ground for the Court to presume that the petitioner has all the resources to contest the proceedings though the distance between the Court and her residence is not very far. The condition of health projected by the petitioner that she is suffering from tuberculosis coupled with the fact that she is also being the caregiver of the minor child, born on 06.11.2014 and the non-payment of any maintenance, either interim or permanent alimony, the said situations are good grounds for the Court to transfer the proceedings of Title Suit (Divorce) No. 35/2025 from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sribhumi to the learned Family Court, Cachar, Silchar.

¶30

13. Accordingly, it is provided as follows:

¶31

(i) That on a certified copy of this order being produced by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Sribhumi, the said learned Court shall transfer the proceedings to the Family Court, Cachar, Silchar;

¶32

(ii) That before transferring the proceedings to the said Family Court, the learned Additional District Judge, Sribhumi, is required to fix a date for appearance of the parties before the learned Transferee Court, giving at

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

least 15 (fifteen) days time for the parties to appear before the said learned Court.

¶35

14. As both sides are duly represented before this Court, both sides are directed to appear before the office of the Court of the learned District Judge, Sribhumi and collect the date of appearance before the learned Transferee Court, as may be fixed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sribhumi.

¶36

15. This application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There would be no order as to cost.

¶37

16. Before parting with the records, it is clarified that this Court has not entered into the merit of the case of the parties and therefore, nothing contained in this order shall cause prejudice to either side.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Shantana (Chakraborty) Bhattacharjee v. Rajarshi Chakraborty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantana (Chakraborty) Bhattacharjee v. Rajarshi Chakraborty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti. Jenny Ndang Vs the Speaker, Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat and 3 Ors.

The State of Nagaland and 5 Ors. Vs Shri Agwenye Magh

Smti Swuli Assumi Vs State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Fakruzzaman Laskar and 7 Ors. Vs Abdus Sukkur Choudhury and 3 Ors.

Sital Bardhan Vs Chand Mahammad Ali

Sayda Jamila Kazi Vs Utpal Kumar Baishya and Anr.