Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010172682024 2025:GAU-AS:5026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./79/2024 JYOTI BORA DAS W/O- SHANKAR DAS, D/O- TARUN BORA, R/O- ALENGMORA NO-1, SONARI GAON, P.S- PULIBOR, P.O- ALENGMORA, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785108 VERSUS SHANKAR DAS S/O- DAMBURU DHAR DAS, R/O- SAIGAON, BIHDIYA GAON, P/S AND P/O- CHAYGAON, DIST- KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-24 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P DAS, LEGAL AID COUNSEL Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 25-04-2025 Heard Ms. P. Das, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The petitioner filed this application under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of F.C. (Civil) case no. 344/2024 from the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to the Court of the District Judge, Jorhat. 3. Notice issued to the respondent through a registered post with AD on 25.10.2024, was received on behalf of the respondent. In view of the above, the notice is deemed to be complete. Accordingly, the case is taken up for hearing in absence of the respondent. 4. The petitioner is wife and the respondent is her husband. Their marriage was solemnized as per the Hindu rites and rituals on 01.03.2021.Out of their wedlock a girl child was born on 09.02.2022.The respondent husband is a Government Employee working under 21 Bn BSF and at the time of filing this case, he was posted at Guwahati. 5. The case of the petitioner is that after their marriage, she was subjected to domestic violence in her matrimonial house. In one such instance, the respondent attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene oil on her body. But, somehow the petitioner escaped and managed to save herself and her daughter. Page No.# 3/6 After the incident, the petitioner return to her parental house at Jorhat along with her minor daughter on 20.03.2023, and since then, they are residing at her parental house at Jorhat. However, the respondent had never tried to contact her, nor had cared to ask about their minor child. The respondent in fact had never bothered to save their broken marriage. On the contrary, the respondent had expressed that he was not happy with his marriage with the petitioner. The family members of the respondent also never welcomed and accepted the petitioner in the family. 6. Due to the above stated reasons, the petitioner and her child has been taking shelter in her parental house and is fully dependant on them. However, the respondent never tried to bring them back to her matrimonial house, nor provided her anything for her maintenance. 7. Under the circumstances and having no alternative, the petitioner filed Misc Case being Case no. 106 of 2023 under section 125 CrPC, before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chetia, Jorhat against the respondent for maintenance of herself and her daughter.The respondent participated in the proceeding of the said case. However, the case is still pending for disposal. 8. The petitioner contended that, thereupon, the respondent husband filed a case under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal rights before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 9. The petitioner received the notice in the said case filed by the respondent.The petitioner asserted that the petition for Restitution of Conjugal rights has been deliberately filed by the respondent husband at Guwahati in Page No.# 4/6 order to cause unnecessary harassment to her while fully knowing that she is taking shelter and staying at her parental house at Jorhat. 10. It is further contended that the petitioner has no any source of income and she and her daughter are solely dependent on her parents and the maintenance amount, the payment of which has also been stopped by the respondent.Thus, the petitioner is unable to bear the travel expenditure to go to Guwahati from Jorhat, to attend the case filed by her respondent/husband. Moreover, there is no one to accompany her and her minor daughter to travel from Jorhat to Guwahati. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is a regular government employee earning regular salary, therefore, it would not cause any inconvenience to the respondent if the Family Court Civil Case no. 344/2024 is transferred from Guwahati to Jorhat. 12. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.C.V Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Civil Appeal No.(S) 4894/2022. 13. For the reasons and submissions made above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for transfer of the Family Court Civil Case no. 344/2024 from the court of the Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jorhat. 14. Upon perusal of the available record and on consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the Page No.# 5/6 petitioner wife has filed the maintenance petition against the respondent husband before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chetia, Jorhat Misc Case being Case no. 106 of 2023 under section 125 CrPC. Thereupon the respondent has filed the present Family Court Civil Case no. 344/2024 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal rights. 15. From the record it appears that the respondent husband is a Government employee working under 21 Bn BSF and permanent resident of Saigaon, Bihdhiya Gaon, under Kamrup (M), Guwahati, Assam. On the other hand, the petitioner and her daughter is solely dependent on her parents at Jorhat, and she does not have any permanent source of earning. 16. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (supra), wherein it has been emphasized that the end of justice demands the transfer of the suit, particularly in matrimonial matters, where the convenience and the welfare of the wife should be prioritized. 17. In the light of the above, it is evident that the respondent is in a better position than the petitioner to attend the court in Jorhat. However, it would be a significant burden and inconvenience for the petitioner being a lady with no stable earning source to travel from Jorhat to Guwahati. 18. 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 Page No.# 6/6 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. 19. 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. 20. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. 21. Consequently, the F.C. (Civil) Case no. 344/2024 pending before the court of Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Kamrup (M), Guwahati is directed to be transferred to the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jorhat, for further trial and disposal. 22. With the above observation and direction, the petition is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant