Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010053862026 2026:GAU-AS:5542 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Tr.P.(C)./30/2026 SMTI SWASTIKA CHAKRAVORTY W/O SRI ANGSHUMAN BHATTACHARJEE, D/O SRI RUBUL CHAKRAVORTY, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SHIVAPUR PATH, CHOLADHORA, TRP ROAD, P.O AND P.S JORHAT, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785001 VERSUS ANGSHUMAN BHATTACHARJEE S/O LATE DURGA BHATTACHARJEE, R/O NO. 1 PATIA PATHAR GAON, P.O AND P.S- TINSUKIA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN- 786125 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J ABBAS, MS P BORA,SK ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A AHMED, MISS. P M AHMED,U U KHAN,MR. M A CHOUDHURY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 22.04.2026 Heard Mr. J. Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition, under Section 24 read with Section 151 of the CPC, is Page No.# 2/9 preferred by the petitioner for transferring Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025, pending before the Court of learned District Judge, Tinsukia, to the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. 3. Mr. Abbas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The marriage between the present petitioner and the respondent was registered under the Special marriage Act, 1954, on 18/12/2023 before the Marriage Officer, Jorhat, Assam. After the marriage they lived together as husband and wife for quite some time. Thereafter, marital discord surfaced between them and then on 26-08-2025, the respondent has filed a suit before the Ld. District Judge, Tinsukia under Section 27 (b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of the marriage between him and the petitioner, being Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025. In the said suit notice was issued to the petitioner, but, the petitioner could not appear and contest case at Tinsukia as she is a woman residing at Jorhat and she is completely dependent upon her parents, having no source of earning of her own. On such count she is unable to travel to Tinsukia from Jorhat and also due to safety and security reasons. Mr. Abbas also submits that the marriage was solemnised at Jorhat and the petitioner is residing at Jorhat. Referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjay and Another reported in (2001) 10 SCC 41, he submits that since the husband has instituted the suit, the wife’s convenience, therefore, must be looked into. Under such circumstances, Mr. Abbas submits that the Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025, may be transferred from the court of Ld. District Judge, Tinsukia to the court of Ld. District Judge, Jorhat. 4. Per contra, Ms. P.M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition. She submits that the petitioner is working as Page No.# 3/9 teacher in a private residential School at Arunachal Pradesh with meagre amount of salary and that it becomes impossible for him also to appear and contest the proceeding at Jorhat, in the event of the petition being allowed. She also submits that the being the dominus litis, the respondent has the right to choose the place where the suit is to be instituted. Under the aforesaid circumstances she has contended to dismiss this petition. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions referred by the parties. 6. It is to be noted here that Section 24 of the CPC provides for transfer of a suit. It reads as under:- “(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage (a) Transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) Withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. Page No.# 4/9 (2) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn under sub-section (1), the Court which 1[is thereafter to try or dispose of such suit or proceeding] may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. (3) For the purposes of this section, (a) Courts of Additional and Assistant Judges shall be deemed to be subordinate to the District Court; (b) Proceeding includes a proceeding for the execution of a decree or order]. (4) The Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes. (5) A suit or proceeding may be transferred under this section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.” 6.1. It the instant case, the applicable provision is 24(1)(ii) of CPC. 6.2. However, before a discussion is directed to the issue involved, it would be in the interest of justice to understand the principles, governing transfer of cases, presently occupying the field. 6.3. In the case of Indian Overseas Bank vs. Chemical Construction Company, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 358, while dealing with considerations that has to be taken into account for transferring a case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- Page No.# 5/9 “16. The principle governing the general power of transfer and withdrawal under Section 24 of the Code is that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and, as such, entitled to institute his suit in any forum which the law allows him. The court should not lightly change that forum and compel him to go to another court, with consequent increase in inconvenience and expense of prosecuting his suit. A mere balance of convenience in favour of proceedings in another court, albeit a material consideration, may not always be a sure criterion justifying transfer. 17. As compared with Section 24, the power of transfer of civil proceeding to another court, conferred under the new Section 25 on the Supreme Court, is far wider. And, so is the amplitude of the expression, “expedient in the interest of justice” which furnishes a general guideline for the exercise of the power. Whether it is expedient or desirable in the interest of justice to transfer a proceeding to another court, is a question which depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” 6.4. There is, however, unanimity of opinion that ‘balance of convenience’ is the prime consideration for transfer of a suit. The expression ‘balance of convenience’ has inspired profound legal thought and has acquired the gloss of many judicial interpretations. Restated in simple terms, it is a question of fact in each case. ‘Balance of convenience’ is neither the convenience of the plaintiff alone nor of the defendant alone, but the balance of convenience of both. In determining the balance of convenience for the trial of a suit, the Court has to take into consideration the following:- “(1) Convenience or inconvenience of the plaintiff and the right of the plaintiff to choose his own forum; Page No.# 6/9 (2) Convenience or inconvenience of the defendant; (3) Convenience or inconvenience of the witnesses required for a proper trial of the suit; (4) Convenience or inconvenience of the particular place of trial having regard to the nature of the evidence on the main points involved in the suit and also having regard to the doctrine of ‘forum convenience’; and (5) Nature of issues in the suit.” (Ref. Baburam Agarwalla vs. Jamunadas Ramji And Co. reported in AIR 1951 Cal 239)” 6.5. Again, in the case of Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi and Anr. vs. Ms. Rani Jethmalani, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 167, Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized the necessity to ensure fair trial, observing as hereunder:- “Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of the dispensation of justice and the central criterion for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is made is not the hypersensitivity or relative convenience of a party or easy availability of legal services or like mini-grievances. Something more substantial, more compelling, more imperiling, from the point of view of public justice and its attendant environment, is necessitous if the Court is to exercise its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle although the circumstances may be myriad and vary from case to case. We have to test the petitioner’s grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule that normally the complainant has the right to choose any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot dictate where the case against him should be tried. Even so, the process of justice should not harass the parties and from that angle the court may weigh the circumstances.” 6.6. Although, Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi (supra), relates to a criminal Page No.# 7/9 case, yet the context is same i.e. transfer. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the principle enunciated therein can be applied in other cases also. 6.7. What is transpired from the aforesaid discussion is that though the plaintiff is dominus litis, yet, the aforesaid right can be interfered with by the court on consideration of several factors and out of the same ‘balance of convenience’ is the prime consideration. 6.8. Further, it is well settled in the case of Anindita Das vs.. Srijit Das reported in (2006) 9 SCC 197, held that 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 behavioural 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. 6.9. In the case of Anindita Das (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that the cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 CPC is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. It has also been held that when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties, which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions. 7. Adverting to the case in, it appears that marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, on Page No.# 8/9 18/12/2023 before the Marriage Officer, Jorhat, Assam. The respondent has filed the Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025 before the Ld. District Judge, Tinsukia under Section 27 (b) and (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of the marriage between him and the petitioner. The petitioner, is a woman and she is residing at Jorhat at her parental abode and she is completely dependent upon her parents, having no source of earning of her own. And because of this she is unable to travel to Tinsukia from Jorhat covering a distance of 360 km (to and fro) and also for the security reason as no one in her to accompany her. 8. On the other hand, the respondent is a teacher in a private residential School at Arunachal Pradesh. His income is meagre. And with such meagre amount of salary it becomes impossible for him also to appear and contest the proceeding at Jorhat. However, he is the dominus litis, of the suit. 9. Thus, balancing the dominus litis and the inconvenience of the respondent with that of the balance of convenience of the petitioner, this court finds that the balance inconvenience of the petitioner outweighed the dominus litis of the respondent. Moreover, in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumita Singh (supra), since the husband has instituted the suit, the wife’s convenience, therefore must be looked into. Further, the inconvenience of the respondent may adequately be taken case of, if he is allowed to appear before the court through the VC. 10. In the result this court finds sufficient merit in the petition and accordingly the same stands allowed. Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025, pending before the court of learned District Judge, Tinsukia stands transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. 11. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same Page No.# 9/9 before the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, and on receipt of the same, the learned District Judge, Tinsukia, shall take necessary steps for transmitting the record of Title Suit (M) Case No. 113/2025, to the Court of learned District Judge, Jorhat. It is further provided that the respondent may appear before the court of learned District Judge at Jorhat, through VC, if so advised, and if so desires, then he must be facilitated to avail the said facility, provides the same is permissible under the Rules presently occupying the field. 12. In terms of above, this transfer petition stands disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant