Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010120362025 2025:GAU-AS:16178 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./32/2025 SMTI CHAYANIKA BORAH D/O SRI BIKASH BORAH, WIFE OF SRI DEVINDER SINGH MARWAHA, P.O.- TEZPUR, P.S.-TEZPUR, DIST- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784001 VERSUS DEVINDER SINGH MARWAHA SON OF SRI SATINDER S MARWAHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JANA PATH CHANDAN NAGAR, P.O.- JORHAT, P.S.- JORHAT, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-784001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P DAS (LEGAL AID COUNSEL), Advocate for the Respondent : SK ABDULLAH, MR. J ABBAS Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 24/11/2025 1. Heard Ms. P Das, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J Abbas, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Smti. Chayanika Borah, praying for transfer of Ttitle Suit (M) No. 83/2024 pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat. 3. Ms. P Das, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 14.08.2017 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 at Jorhat and thereafter, they were resided together as husband and wife at Jorhat. 4. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the petitioner submits that after some time of their marriage, matrimonial dispute arose between them and they started living separately. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner even suffered from mental break down and had to take counseling in that regard. She submits that the petitioner is now staying at Tezpur in her maternal home along with her parents. She further submits that the father of the petitioner is a retired person and she is suffering from financial constraint. She further submits that the respondent, in the meanwhile, had instituted a divorce case, which was Page No.# 3/6 registered as Title Suit (M) No. 83/2024 at Jorhat on 27.05.2024, which is now pending before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat. In the said suit, the respondent sought dissolution of his marriage with the present petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s cause is defended before the Trial Court by a Legal Aid Defence Counsel. However, due to financial constraint, she is unable to travel to Jorhat from Tezpur on each and every day and unable to instruct the Legal Aid Defence Counsel properly. The petitioner was even not allowed to file written statement in the divorce case. She further submits that due to her ailment (severe depression and anxiety), frequent long distance travelling is not good for her health. She submits that in matrimonial matter, where a divorce case is filed by the husband in a place which is far away from the place where the wife resides, the Court should take a liberal view of the matter and normally allowed such transfer application considering the difficulty faced by the wife. 7. In support of her submission, learned Legal Aid counsel for the petitioner has cited ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Susmita Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and Anr. reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41 as well as in the case of Arti Rani @ Pinki Devi Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 353. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the transfer petition filed by the present petitioner may not be allowed merely because of the fact that she is a lady. Further, he submits that no documents have been submitted by the petitioner in support of the contention regarding her ailment. He further submits that the petitioner has also suppressed the fact regarding her financial status, inasmuch as, she is a self employed woman Page No.# 4/6 having commercial Girls Paying Guest at Porua Chariali. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is also dealing with the business of sale and purchase of old vehicle at Tezpur and therefore, the plea taken by her of financial constraint are not true. He further submits that the father of the respondent is a 71 years old person, suffering from various ailments as well as his mother is also an aged person, suffering from various ailments and it is the respondent who has to look after the requirements of his ailing aged parents and therefore, if the transfer petition is allowed and the respondent is compelled to pursue his divorce proceeding at Tezpur, he would be highly prejudiced. 10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have also gone through the records of the case. 12. From the records, it appears that since the marriage was solemnized at Jorhat and since the present petitioner resides at Tezpur presently, both the Courts at Tezpur as well as Jorhat have the jurisdiction to entertain an application for divorce under Special Marriage Act, 1954. It appears from the records that the said divorce proceeding was instituted by the respondent at Jorhat and no claim for their maintenance as well as cost of proceeding has been made by the present petitioner before the Courts at Jorhat. It also appears from the records that due to inability in pursuing the case at Jorhat by the present petitioner, she was declined to submit written statement in the said Page No.# 5/6 case. It appears that apart from averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent, there is no material to show that the present petitioner is a self-employed lady and is in stabled economic condition. 13. On the other hand, it appears from the records that due to inability of the petitioner in pursuing the divorce case at Tezpur, she was even not allowed to file written statement as the time period for filing the same has been lapsed. 14. The ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Anindita Das Vs. Srijit Das (supra), though the Apex Court has observed that the Courts are showing leniency to ladies in the matter of transfer petition, however, it has been found that in a large number of cases, women are taken advantage of leniency shown by the Court. Hence, the transfer petitioner is required to be considered on its merit. 15. In the instant case, it is apparent from the records that the petitioner has not been able to pursue the divorce case at Jorhat properly. Though, she earlier engaged counsel in the divorce case, however, later on, she had to be defendant by Legal Aid Defence counsel in the said divorce case, which itself shows that the petitioner is at disadvantage stage. On the other hand, the respondent who had instituted the divorce suit at Jorhat has taken the plea of ailment of his aged parents. However, this Court is unable to pursue itself with the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent that due to ailment of the parents of the respondent, he may not be able to properly pursue his case at Tezpur. 16. In the instant case, no material has been shown by the petitioner apart from the mere statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition regarding the Page No.# 6/6 economic status of the present petitioner. 17. After perusing the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that it may be difficult for the present petitioner to properly defend the divorce case by attending the Courts at Jorhat from her maternal home at Tezpur. Hence, this is a fit case where powers under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be invoked and the Title Suit (M) No. 83/2024 is accordingly transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur. 18. The learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat is hereby directed to transfer the records of Title Suit (M) No. 83/2024 to the Court of learned District Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur, as expeditiously as possible, under any circumstances before the next date fixed, as indicated herein below. On receipt of the said records, the Court of learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur shall proceed with the trial and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. 19. Since the learned counsel for both the parties are present before this Court, both the parties are directed to appear before the Court of learned District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur on 28.01.2026. 20. Accordingly, this transfer petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant