ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY, J. - (1.) THE petitioner in this application under section 24 CPC has prayed for transfer of Mat. Suit No.8 of 2014 filed by the opposite party, her husband, pending before the learned court of the Additional District Judge at Nabadwip, Nadia to any other court having jurisdiction to try the case in the District South 24 -Parganas.
(2.) IT is a case of the petitioner that after being compelled to leave her matrimonial home at Nabadwip, she is presently residing in Kolkata. She basically resides with her parents at Talpukur Road, PS - Sarsuna Kolkata, but sometimes she resides with her aunt at Paikpara, PS Chitpore, Kolkata. She has no independent source of income and she is totally dependent upon her parents for maintaining herself. She has filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 -Parganas. In the said application an order was passed directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2000 to her. The opposite party has challenged the said order by filing an application before the Sessions Judge at Alipore. Thus, not only the original application filed by the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 but also the revisional application filed by the opposite party is also pending in the Alipore court. For that purpose the opposite party visits the Alipore court. The petitioner has also filed an application under section 125 CrPC against the opposite party which is pending before the Sealdah court.
(3.) IT is the further case of the petitioner that since she is in deep financial distress, it would be extremely difficult for her to contest the matrimonial suit filed by the opposite party before the Nabadwip court by travelling more than 100 kilometres from Kolkata where she presently resides. By an order dated May 13, 2015 the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of this application upon the opposite party. The petitioner has complied with the aforesaid order. Mr Roy appears for the opposite party. Mr Roy submits that this application can be disposed of on the basis of the averments made in the application. According to him, none of the averments contained in the application warrants any order being passed as prayed for by the petitioner.;