Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010204332023 2025:GAU-AS:4779 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./85/2023 RANA MAYA PRADHAN DAUGHTER OF GOBINDA PRADHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- TINKU PATHAR, P.O.- BISHNUPUR, P.S.- LEKHAPANI, DISTRICT- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786188. VERSUS BIKASH NEWAR SON OF RAM BAHADUR NEWAR, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BASMATIA, NAHARANI, P.O.- DIHING HULA, P.S.- TENGAKHAT, DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786101 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HATIGAON, KAILASH NAGAR, GOLDEN PATH, BYE LANE NO. 2, HOUSE NO. 1, GUWAHATI- 781038, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. BHASKAR DUTTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MS L RONGPIPI,MR JITENDRA DAS,MR. SAILENDRA DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 22-04-2025 Heard Mr. J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The record reveals that despite of receipt of the notice the respondent did not appear and contest the case. However, this Court having found the case pending since 2023, decided to proceed with the hearing of the case for disposal in absence of the respondent. 3. The petitioner filed this application under Section 24 read with Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of F.C. (Civil) case no. 940/2023 from the Court of Principal District Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to the Court of Additional District Judge, Margherita. 4. The fact of the case leading to the filing of this transfer petition is that the petitioner is wife, and the respondent is her husband. Their marriage was solemnized on 04.02.2016 as per the Hindu religious rites and customs. Out of their marriage, they have begotten a male child born on 02.02.2017. 5. That after their marriage, the respondent started to demand dowry from the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs), and as the petitioner was unable to fulfill such demands, the petitioner was subjected to the mental and physical torture at the hands of the respondent and his family members. The respondent also threatened to contract a second marriage. Not only that, the respondent tried to pressurize the petitioner for mutual divorce. Page No.# 3/7 Such, mental and physical torture kept on increasing day by day. Ultimately, on 03.06.2021, the petitioner and her child were driven out of the matrimonial house by the respondent and his family members. 6. The petitioner having no other alternative moved to her paternal house at Margherita for shelter. However, the respondent never tried to contact her or even visited their minor child. The basic necessity for the petitioner and her minor son was provided by her parents. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that the respondent had married another woman, namely Smti Sheela Newar. After having come to know that the respondent/husband has married another woman, the petitioner went to her matrimonial house, however, the respondent did not allow her to enter the house. 7. Under such circumstances, the petitioner filed a domestic violence case against the respondent and her family before the SDJM, Margherita which was registered and numbered as Misc (Dv) case no. 09/2021, praying for protection order, residence order, monetary relief and compensation order. 8. On notice, the respondent appeared, however, they failed to file their written statement and to adduce any evidence. By Judgment and order dated 26.12.2022, the learned Court passed an order- preventing the respondent and his family members from committing any act of violence against the petitioner. The learned court also directed to pay Rs. 8000/- per month as monetary relief to the petitioner and to pay Rs. 2000/- per month as house rent. 9. The petitioner contended that thereupon, the respondent husband filed a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for of Restitution of Conjugal rights at Guwahati. The petitioner received the notice from learned Principal Page No.# 4/7 District Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in connection with Family Court Civil Case no. 940/2023 filed by the respondent. 10. The petitioner asserted that the petition for Restitution of Conjugal rights has been deliberately filed by the respondent at Guwahati in order to cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, while fully knowing that the petitioner is staying with her parents at Tinku Pathar, Margherita, Assam. 11. It is submitted that the petitioner has no any source of income, she and her son are solely dependent on her old aged parents. Thus, unable to cover and bear the travel expenditure to go to Guwahati from Margherita to attend the case filed by the respondent/husband. Moreover, there is no one to accompany her and her minor son to travel to Guwahati. Besides, she and her son has also received a threat from the respondent. 12. It is further submitted that the respondent/husband is a permanent resident of Dihing Hula, Tengakhat, Dibrugarh, he is an established businessman earning around Rs. 60,000/- per month. The respondent also owned 2 Nos. of goods carrier. Therefore, it would not cause any inconvenience to the respondent, if the Family Court Civil case no. 940/2023 is transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Margherita. 13. 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, whereby it was held that: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Page No.# 5/7 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 behaviourable Page No.# 4/6 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.” 14. For the reasons and submissions made above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for transfer of the Family Court Civil Case No. 940/2023, from the court of the Principal District Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, to the Court of Additional District Judge, Margherita. 15. Upon perusal of the available records and on consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner/wife has filed a domestic violence case against the respondent husband and his family members before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Margherita in which the learned SDJM, Margherita by an order dated 26.12.2022, prevented the respondent and his family members from committing any further act of domestic violence upon the petitioner; directed the respondent to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month as monetary relief to the petitioner; and also directed to pay Rs. 2000/- as house rent. Thereupon, the respondent has filed the present FC (Civil) case no. 940/2023, before the Principal District Judge, Family Court- II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for Restitution of Conjugal rights. Page No.# 6/7 16. From the record it appears that the respondent/husband is an established businessman having permanent resident at Margherita, earning a monthly income of Rs. 60,000/- and also owned 2 (two) nos. of goods carrier. On the other hand, the petitioner wife and her son is solely dependent on her old aged parents residing in Margarita, and she does not have any permanent earning source of her own. 17. 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. 18. 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 Margherita, where both the petitioner and the respondent resides. However, it would be a significant burden and inconvenience for the petitioner being a lady with no stable earning source to travel from Guwahati to Jorhat. 19. 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. Page No.# 7/7 20. 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. 21. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. 22. Consequently, the F.C. (Civil) case no. 940/2023 pending before the Court of Principal District Judge, Family Court-II, Kamrup (M), Guwahati is directed to be transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge, Margherita, for further trial and disposal. 23. With the above observation and direction, the petition is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant