C.O. 1623 OF 2025 25.08.2025 Sl no. 62 Masuda Sultana alias Juhi Ct no. 25 - Vs – P.M. Mustaque Alam. + CAN 1 of 2025 Mr. Suranjan Mandal, Mr. Sandip Ganguly Ms. Mousumi Biswas …. For the petitioner Mr. Goutam Dey, Ms, Dattatreya Dutta, Mr. Abhijit Mondal ... for the opposite party 1. Present petition has been filed for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No. 697 of 2025 from the Court of learned Additional District Judge (3rd Court) at Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) to the Court of the learned District Judge, Malda, District Malda. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is distance of around 340 K.M. from the place of residence of the petitioner to Alipore. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is living with her retired father who is suffering from various ailments. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has no source of income and it is very inconvenient for her and hardship for the petitioner to defend the matrimonial suit filed by the opposite party/husband. Learned counsel submits that in fact the petitioner had earlier filed the matrimonial suit No. 1772 of 2023 before Alipore Court for restitution of conjugal rights, however, the same was dismissed as the petitioner could not prosecute the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Sunita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjoy & Anr. AIR 2002 SC 396 and Pampa Banerjee Vs. Mridul Banerjee 2016(4) CHN (CAL) 80. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has vehemently opposed the transfer petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has suppressed the material fact and has even misrepresented before this court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is working as a teacher as reflected from earlier facebook account. Learned counsel further submits that the opposite party/husband who is a Judicial officer is presently posted at Bankura. Learned counsel further submits that the Alipore Court is at equal distance for the petitioner/wife and opposite party/husband. Learned counsel 2 further submits that opposite party/husband is taking care of the child and it will be very difficult for the opposite party/husband to prosecute this matrimonial suit in Malda. 5. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon Moumita Dey Sarkar – Vs – Subrata Dey Sarkar 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 11962, Amandeep Goyal – Vs – Yogesh Rani (2016) 15 Supreme Court Cases 267, Preeti Sharma Vs. Manjit Sharma (2005) 11 Supreme Court Cases 535 and K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited & Ors. (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 481. 6. The Court has considered the submissions and perused the record carefully. The power of transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure transfer is a extraordinary jurisdiction which has to be exercised with circumspection. The Court may order for the transfer of the petition only if the petitioner seeking transfer is able to demonstrate that if the matter is not be transferred the same may lead to injustice. It has repeatedly been held that in the matrimonial suit convenience of wife should be given paramount importance 3 except in the exceptional circumstances where there is perversity or malafide on the part of the wife. 7. In the present case the petitioner/wife is living at Sujapur, P.S. Kaliachak which is stated to be around 350 K.M. from Alipore. The petitioner/wife is residing with her parent. Prima facie it seems that if the matter is allowed to be continued at Alipore the petitioner/wife may not be able to contest the same and it may be lead to injustice. 8. The fact that the opposite party/husband is taking care of the child cannot be a ground for denying the transfer of the petition. The Court does not see any prejudice being caused to the opposite party/husband, if the matter is transferred to Malda. The Court is also conscious of the fact that these are civil proceedings and personal appearance of the parties are not required on each and every date of hearing. The parties are required to appear only for the purpose of recording the evidence or on specific order by the Court for personal appearance. 4 9. In the present case since the opposite party/husband is posted at Bankura the learned Trial Court at Malda may record the evidence of the opposite party/husband through Video Conference and in case the opposite party/husband is directed to appear he may be allowed to appear through Video Conference. 10. With this observation the Court considers that no hardship will be caused to the opposite party/husband. 11. In the circumstances, the matrimonial suit No. 697 of 2025 is withdrawn from the additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas and assigned to the Court of competent jurisdiction of learned District Judge, Malda, District Malda for expeditious disposal preferably within three months from this date. 12. This revisional application is disposed of. 13. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.) 5