Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010093992024 2025:GAU-AS:4619 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./41/2024 DIPIKA NATH WIFE OF BABLU NATH, DAUGHTER OF SRI MONI NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHINATOLIA, P.O.- BOGOLIJAN, P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787031. VERSUS BABLU NATH S/O- SRI NRIPENDRA NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RADHA NAGAR, P.O. AND P.S.- RAMKRISHNA NAGAR, DISTRICT- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788166. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR S DUTTA,MS S MOCHAHARI,MR. S DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 10-04-2025 Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking the transfer of Title Suit (Divorce) No. 15/2024 from the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Karimganj to the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 3. The petitioner states that she is the wife and the respondent is the husband, and their marriage was solemnized before the Marriage Officer in North Lakhimpur on 01.08.2016. After marriage, they lived together as husband and wife in the respondent's house in Karimganj. From their marriage, they have a son and a daughter. 4. The respondent works in the Army as a GNR. After living together for about a year, the respondent and his relatives began demanding dowry and subjected the petitioner to physical torture. On several occasions, she had to borrow money from her parents to give to the respondent. The petitioner, along with her children, lived with the respondent at his workplace in Nagaon and in Punjab for a few days. However, the respondent continued to mentally torture the petitioner and verbally abused her with filthy language. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent was in contact with one Pallabi Thakuria in Guwahati, and when she protested, he tortured her and even threatened to kill her by setting her ablaze. Page No.# 3/7 5. The petitioner contends that the respondent and his parents created mental pressure on her by demanding dowry, sometimes assaulting her, and ultimately driving her out of the matrimonial home in December 2020. As a result, she had to take shelter in her parents' home. After staying with her parents for a month, she moved into a rented house with her two children. The petitioner earns her livelihood by doing petty work at various shops and establishments. Consequently, she faces financial hardship as she has to cover her children's educational expenses and pay house rent. 6. On the other hand, the respondent, being a regular employee in the Army, earns Rs. 67,000 per month. Additionally, he has various cultivable lands from which he earns Rs. 50,000 per month. The petitioner, having no other source of income and being unable to maintain herself and her children, filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, North Lakhimpur. By order dated 20.07.2022, the learned Magistrate granted maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month to the petitioner and Rs. 5,000 each to her two minor children. However, till date, the respondent has not paid any maintenance and has challenged the maintenance order before this Hon’ble Court, which is pending adjudication. 7. The petitioners counsel further states that during the pendency of the above- mentioned application challenging the maintenance order, the respondent filed another Title Suit (Divorce) No. 15/2024 before the District Judge at Karimganj, seeking a decree of dissolution of marriage under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner asserts that the respondent deliberately filed the aforesaid divorce case in Karimganj, despite knowing that she has no stable source of income and has Page No.# 4/7 been living with her parents since December 2020, later on moved in to a rented house. Since then, she has been bearing her children's educational expenses and living from hand to mouth. Due to these circumstances, the petitioner cannot afford the travel expenses from North Lakhimpur to Karimganj for each court date. Moreover, the distance from North Lakhimpur to Karimganj is approximately 1820 km, which is a considerable distance and not feasible for the petitioner, a lone woman with children, to appear before the court. This situation would cause significant inconvenience in contesting the proceedings in the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimganj. Additionally, the petitioner has been left in financial distress by the respondent, who has not paid any maintenance despite the order from the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhimpur. Given her insufficient income, the petitioner will be unable to bear the travel expenses from North Lakhimpur to Karimganj, which would result in immense financial hardship and extreme mental and physical agony for her and her children. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after enduring physical and mental torture for about four years at the hands of the respondent and her in-laws, the petitioner is afraid to return to Karimganj to contest the case, as she feels insecure and unsafe. She also fears for her life and that of her children. Therefore, she has no alternative but to approach this Court, praying for transfer of Title Suit (Divorce) No. 15/2024 from the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Karimganj to the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V.Aishwarya vs A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1199 wherein it Page No.# 5/7 emphasizes that the ends of justice demand the transfer of the suit, particularly in matrimonial matters, where the convenience and welfare of the wife should be prioritized. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.” 10. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. The record reveals that the petitioner has taken steps to serve notice to the respondent through Dasti service. After effecting the notice through Dasti, the petitioner filed an affidavit indicating that the respondent received the notice. However, despite of receipt of notice, no one appears on behalf of the sole respondent. It appears that the respondent is not interested to contest the case. Hence, the matter is taken up for disposal based on available record. 11. Upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the record, it appears that the respondent husband has filed Title Suit (Divorce) No. 15/2024, seeking the dissolution of the marriage solemnized between the parties. This petition is pending before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Karimganj, while the maintenance petition filed by the petitioner has already been disposed of by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhimpur against which the respondent filed I.A (Crl) 862/2023 Page No.# 6/7 challenging the maintenance order. 12. The record indicates that the respondent is a regular employee earning Rs. 67,000 per month, while the petitioner is a petty worker who earns her livelihood by doing petty work in various shops and other establishments. She is also responsible for the welfare of her two children, including their education, food, and shelter. However, despite the order issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lakhimpur, the respondent has not paid any maintenance to the petitioner. 13. In light of the above, it is evident that the respondent is in a better position than the petitioner to attend court in Lakhimpur from Karimganj. It would be a significant burden and inconvenience for the petitioner being a lady with no stable earning sources to travel from Lakhimpur to Karimganj, which is approximately 1820 km away. 14. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi vs Kishore Babulal Pardeshireported in (2005) 12 SCC 237 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “while deciding transfer application, the Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience to the female litigants and transfer of legal proceedings from one Court to another should ordinarily be allowed, taking into consideration their convenience and the Court should desist from putting female litigants in undue hardship”. 15. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the grounds raised, and also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited case, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the transfer petition. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. Page No.# 7/7 Consequently, the Title Suit (Divorce) No. 15/2024, pending before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Karimganj, is ordered to be transferred to the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, for further trial and disposal. 16. With the above observation, the petition is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant