Rakhi Banerjee vs Subhankar Mukherjee

2

3. The respondent had taken the petitioner to Chennai

immediately after their marriage. There was serious problem

in the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent

from the very inception. According to the petitioner, during

her stay at Chennai, she was subjected to cruelty and torture.

4. According to the version of the petitioner, the respondent

used to utter that the status and educational qualification of

the petitioner did not match with the respondent and as such

she should bring Rs.5 lakhs from her parents as dowry. The

parents of the petitioner on learning about harassment and

humiliation had rushed to Chennai on 21.10.2005. According

to the petitioner, even her parents were also ill-treated,

threatened and abused with filthy languages by the

respondent.

5. A male child was born out of this wedlock on

17.11.2005. Even thereafter the respondent severally tortured

and assaulted the petitioner both mentally and physically.

Ultimately, she left her matrimonial home on 28.08.2006 and

came back to her parents' house along with her small child at 3

Burdwan, West Bengal.

6. The respondent filed a suit under section 11 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court at Madras for

declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent be declared null and void. This case was

transferred by this Court to the District Judge, Burdwan, West

Bengal by order dated 13.7.2007.

7. The respondent filed an anticipatory bail application

before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay being Criminal

Application No.393 of 2007 and on consideration of the

complaint filed by the petitioner before the Burdwan police

station being Crime No.759 of 2006 under sections 498-A/506

(II)/406/120-B/420 IPC, the High Court was pleased to grant

conditional bail to the respondent and directed to approach

the concerned Court at Burdwan, West Bengal for seeking

relief as per law.

8. The respondent filed a Civil Suit No.527 of 2007 before

the High Court of Judicature at Madras in which it was prayed

that the petitioner be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as 4

damages for causing emotional pain and suffering, loss of

companionship, loss of enjoyment of life, and for direct and

consequential losses to the respondent.

9. The petitioner has prayed that all other proceedings are

pending within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Calcutta.

Only this suit bearing no.527 of 2007 is pending in the

jurisdiction of High Court of Madras. The petitioner has

prayed that this suit may be transferred from the High Court

of Madras to the Calcutta High Court because of the following

grounds:

a) The petitioner is having a small child and it is

extremely difficult for her to travel with a small

child to attend the case at Chennai;

b) The petitioner has no source of income and

she is staying with her retired parents;

c) All cases between the parties are pending

within the jurisdiction of High Court of

Calcutta where the respondent is otherwise 5

attending those cases at Kolkata;

d) The respondent has now been transferred to

Mumbai. As far as the respondent is

concerned, it hardly matters for him whether

he travels to Chennai or Kolkata to attend the

case whereas it is extremely difficult for the

petitioner to travel to Chennai to attend the

case particularly when she is totally

unemployed and dependant on her retired

parents.

10. A comprehensive counter affidavit has been filed by the

respondent. In the counter affidavit, the allegations leveled

against the respondent have been denied but the factum of

their marriage and child born out of the wedlock is admitted.

It is also not disputed that the petitioner is residing in Kolkata

with parents. It is also not denied that the four cases between

the parties are pending within the jurisdiction of High Court of

Calcutta. It is further not denied that the respondent has now

been transferred to Mumbai and he is attending other cases 6

filed against him in Kolkata.

11. At this stage, we would not like to examine the veracity of

the allegations leveled by the parties against each other.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The

admitted facts are that the petitioner is unemployed and has a

small child and living with her retired parents. Four other

cases are already pending within the jurisdiction of the

Calcutta High Court. The respondent has now been

transferred from Chennai to Mumbai.

13. On consideration of the totality of the facts and

circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it

appropriate to transfer Civil Suit No.527 of 2007 titled as

`Subhankar Mukherjee v. Rakhi Banerjee' pending in the

High Court of Madras to the High Court of Calcutta. We order

accordingly.

14. The transfer petition is accordingly allowed and disposed

of.

7

.................................J. (Dalveer Bhandari)

.................................J. (Harjit Singh Bedi) New Delhi;

November 17, 2008.