Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010140102024 2025:GAU-AS:5123 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./69/2024 RIPAKHI BARUAH W/O- SRI RUPJYOTI BORGOHAIN, D/O- SRI ANIL BARUAH, R/O- HAHCHARA, MORAN GAON, P.O. DAYAL CHARIALI, P.S. AND DIST. SIVASAGAR, ASSAM, PIN- 785701. VERSUS RUPJYOTI BORGOHAIN S/O- SRI KRISHNA BORGOHAIN, R/O- SONARI TOWN, WARD NO. 01, P.O. AND P.S. SONARI, DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN- 785690. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, MR. M R SODIAL,MS S Z HAYAT Advocate for the Respondent : M DAS, MR U S BORGOHAIN Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 28-04-2025 Heard Mr. S.S.S. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.C.Borgohain, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner filed this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for transfer of Title Suit (M) No. 10/2022 from the Court of the District Judge, Charaideo to the Court of District Judge, Sivasagar 3. The petitioner is the wife, and the respondent is her husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 30.11.2014, as per the Hindu rites, rituals and customs. Out of their conjugal life, a daughter was born in the year 2017, now aged about 8 years. 4. The case of the petitioner is that in the month of August, 2018, she came to know that her husband/respondent was having an extra marital affair with other woman (name withheld) from Jorhat and on query, the respondent fairly admitted that he was having an extra marital affair with the said lady, and also informed her that they have even performed marriage in the temple at Jorhat and cohabited. The respondent also informed the petitioner that due to their such cohabitation, the said lady got pregnant but subsequently aborted. In addition to that, the respondent openly declared that he was not happy with the petitioner and wanted to stay with the said lady and not with the petitioner. Page No.# 3/7 5. The petitioner further contended that the respondent husband insisted her to accept the said lady as his second wife or else the petitioner would have to face dire consequences. The respondent also forced the petitioner to give her consent for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent. Under the circumstances and having no other alternative option, the petitioner left the matrimonial house and took shelter in her parental home. Later on, the petitioner lodged an Ezhar at Sonari PS on 08.02.2019, against the respondent. 6. It is further contended that on 01.02.2020, the guardian of both the parties sat together in presence of the local persons and advocates of Charaideo Bar Association to settle the difference between the parties amicably, however, instead, the respondent appeared under intoxication and insulted and abused the petitioner’s parents with filthy language and also openly declared that he used to consume drugs and he had never accepted the petitioner as his wife. The respondent also declared that he is no longer interested to continue his marital tie with the petitioner and in her place, he would bring the said lady with whom he has clandestinely married. 7. It is also contended that on 17.02.2020, the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondent seeking safety and security and well being of the minor daughter and requested the respondent and her in-laws to give her permission to reside within their boundary but they did not pay any heed to such request. The petitioner further alleged that during the lockdown period, i.e., on 15.04.2020, the respondent brutally assaulted the petitioner, for which the petitioner informed the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Sonari Police Station over phone. The police immediately rushed to the house of the respondent and warned him and his parents not to repeat the torture on the petitioner in the Page No.# 4/7 future. But the respondent and his parents again started misbehaving with the petitioner and told her time and again asking her to go back to her parental home. Thus, finding no other way, and under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner left the matrimonial house on 16.04.2020 with her minor daughter. 8. Thereafter, since the respondent was not maintaining the petitioner, she filed a maintenance petition before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sivasagar, which was registered as Misc Case no. 03/2021 under Section 125 Cr.PC claiming maintenance for herself and her daughter. The said maintenance petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 16.09.2023, and directed the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 8000/- for maintenance to his wife and daughter. 9. Thereupon, the respondent filed the Title Suit (M) under Section 13(1) (i-a and i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at Charaideo, for dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce against the petitioner by making false allegation against the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an unemployed having no earning source and under the circumstances, she has no means to afford to go to Charaideo to contest the case. On the other hand, the respondent is a regular Government Employee drawing salary of Rs. 31,069/- per month. 11. It is submitted that the said divorce petitioner has been deliberately filed by the respondent at Charaideo, in order to cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner while fully knowing that the petitioner is stationed at Sivasagar. However, the respondent being a Government Employee and also being a male Page No.# 5/7 person, will have no problem attending the court at Sibsagar. Moreover, the respondent has already contested the maintenance case file by the petitioner at Sibsagar. As such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the matrimonial case is transferred to Sivasagar. 12. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent while raising objection submitted that the petitioner is already contesting the case by filling written statement. Moreover, the distance between Sivasagar and Charaideo is not very far away. In addition to that the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that case is at its advance stage. Therefore, it is not proper to transfer the case at this stage. 13. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the available record, it appears that earlier the petitioner filed an FIR against the respondent for physical assault and subsequently filed the maintenance petition before the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sivasagar. The said case was contested by the respondent husband. Thereupon, the respondent has filed the present Title Suit (M) No. 10/2022 before the court of the District Judge, Charaideo while knowing fully that the petitioner wife is staying at Sivasagar. 14. From the record it also appears that the respondent husband is a government employee earning regular monthly salary, while the petitioner and her daughter is solely dependent on her parents at Sivasagar and she does not have any permanent source of income. 15. In the case of N.C.V Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.(S) 4894/2022, it has been emphasized that the end of justice demands the transfer of the suit, particularly Page No.# 6/7 in matrimonial matters, where the convenience and the welfare of the wife should be prioritized. 16. Further in the case of Rajani Kishor Pardeshi Vs. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi reported in (2005 12 SCC 237), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that while deciding the transfer application, Courts are required to give more weightage and consideration to the convenience of the female litigants and transfer of proceedings from one Court to another coordinately be allowed taking into consideration their convenience and the Court should desist from putting female litigants in undue hardship. 17. In the light of the discussion made above, it is evident that the respondent is in a better position than the petitioner to attend the court at Sivasagar. However, it would be a significant burden and inconvenience for the petitioner being a lady with no stable earning source to travel from Sivasagar to Charaideo with her minor child. 18. Considering the contention made by the petitioner and the ground raised, and also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited cases, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the transfer petition. 19. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. 20. Consequently, the Title Suit (M) No. 10/2022 pending before the Court of District Judge, Charaideo is directed to be transferred to the Court of District Judge, Sivasagar, for further trial and disposal. 21. With the above observation and direction, the petition is allowed and Page No.# 7/7 disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant