Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010049222023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./18/2023 SIKHA MONI BORDOLOI D/O- LATE HARESWAR BORA, W/O- JITEN BORDOLOI, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF KONHAR GAON, P.O. JAKHARIA GAON, P.S. TEOK, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT LOKHORA, BAMUNPARA, DAMODAR NAGAR BANK COLONY, HOUSE NO. 11, PIN- 78140. VERSUS JITEN BORDOLOI S/O- SRI BUDDHIN BORDOLOI, R/O- CITY POLICE RESERVE UNDER PANBAZAR POLICE STATION, GHY-01 (ASSAM THROUGH 4 ABPN, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SHANTIPUR, TITABAR CHARIALI, TITABAR, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARMAH, S. J. SAHARIAH,B. D. KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : DR. R SARMAH, MS P SAHA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 21.04.2025 Heard Mr. D. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. R. Page No.# 2/6 Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the sole respondent. 2. The petitioner files this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking transfer of case No.(M)T.S. 163/2022 from the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge at Jorhat to the Family Court, Kamrup(M) Guwahati. 3. The fact of the case leading to the filing of this transfer petition is that the petitioner is the wife and the respondent is the husband. Their marriage was solemnised on 06.06.1994 as per the Hindu religious rites and customs. Out of their marriage they have begotten a daughter, now aged about 29 years, and a son aged about 26 years. Both the children have become major now. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that after few years of their marriage the opposite party started to neglect the petitioner and her children. The opposite party started mental and physical torture upon the petitioner and refused to maintain them. Finding no other alternate, the petitioner filed maintenance case against the respondent in the year 2013. The case was registered as Misc Case No. 20/2013 under Section 125 of Code of Cr.Pc. 1973. By judgment and order dated 10.07.2023, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat directed the opposite party to pay maintenance to the petitioner and her children. However, the opposite party has never paid maintenance amount directed by the Hon’ble Court, and made the petitioner and her children suffer miserably. 5. The petitioner further contended that thereupon the respondent husband, filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent before the Court of Addl. District Judge, Jorhat. A notice of the said petition was served to the petitioner through her relatives at Page No.# 3/6 Jorhat, as the petitioner no longer stays at Jorhat. She stays at Guwahati with her daughter since last two years. 6. The petitioner asserted that the divorce petition has been deliberately filed by the respondent husband at Jorhat in order to cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioner, while fully knowing that the petitioner is no longer staying at Jorhat, and she is staying at Guwahati with her daughter. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner has no any source of income and she is dependent on her daughter and hence, she is unable to afford to bear the expenditure to go to Jorhat from Guwahati to attend the divorce petition filed by her respondent husband. It is further submitted that the respondent husband is a service holder, working in the police department and presently posted at City Police Reserve under Paltan Bazar Police Station, Guwahati. And as the respondent husband is working at Guwahati, it will not cause any inconvenience to him, if the (M)T.S. 163/2022 filed by him is transferred from the Court of the Addl. District Judge at Jorhat to the Family Court, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. Hence, prays for transfer of the case. 8. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the petitioner referred the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 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 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.” 9. The learned counsel for the respondent while referring to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent submits that the respondent husband is a police personnel posted at Jorhat and not at Guwahati as falsely stated by the petitioner in the transfer petition. However, the respondent failed to show any documentary that he is presently posted at Jorhat and not at Guwahati. He further submits that the (M)T.S. 163/2022, pending before the Court of the Addl. District Judge at Jorhat proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner due to her non-appearance. And presently, it is at the evidence stage. Therefore, while objecting the transfer of the Case from Jorhat to Guwahati, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that at this stage, it will cause unnecessary delay and is likely to result in miscarriage of justice. 10. In support of his argument the learned counsel for the respondent refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Abhilasha Gupta Vs.Harimohan Gupta, reported in 2021 (9SCC 730), wherein it was held that having regard to the advance stage of the divorce petition filed by the respondent husband against the petitioner wife, the Court was not inclined to allow the petition. 11. For the reasons and submissions made above, the learned counsel for the respondent prays for dismissal of the petition. 12. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the Page No.# 5/6 material available on record. 13. Upon perusal of the record and on consideration of the submission of the learned counsel of both the parties, it appears that the petitioner wife has filed a maintenance petition against her respondent husband claiming the maintenance of the wife and children, in which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jorhat has directed for maintenance of the wife and children. Thereupon, the respondent has filed the (M)T.S. 163/2022 under Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce by dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. It appears that due to non-appearance the said divorce case proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner wife and now it is pending at a stage of evidence. 14. It also appears that the husband is government employee working as a police personnel and presently stated to be working in City Police Reserve under Paltan Bazar Police Station, Guwahati, and the petitioner wife although having permanent residence at Konhar Gaon, P.O. Jakharia Gaon, P.S- Teok, Dist-Jorhat, Assam is presently residing at Guwahati with her daughter since last 2 years, and she does not have any permanent earning sources of her own. 15. I have also gone through judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred by both the parties, particularly the case of N.C.V.Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein it has been emphasised 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. 16. In light of the above, it is evident that the respondent is in a better position than the petitioner to attend Court in Guwahati from Guwahati, or even Page No.# 6/6 if he is posted at Jorhat. 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. 17. 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 co-ordinately be allowed taking into consideration their convenience and the Court should desist from putting female litigants in undue hardship. 18. Considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and a ground raised and also in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited cases, this Court finds it appropriate to allow the transfer petition. Therefore, the present petition is allowed. 19. Consequently the (M)T.S. 163/2022 pending before the Court of the learned Addl. District Judge at Jorhat is ordered to be transfer to the Family Court, Kamrup(M), Guwahati for further Trial and disposal. 20. With above observation the petition is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant