NON-REPORTABLE

      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.627 OF 2007  

Rakhi Banerjee   …. Petitioner

  Versus

Subhankar Mukherjee   .... Respondent

O R D E R

Dalveer Bhandari, J.  

1. This transfer petition has been moved by the petitioner

with the  prayer  that  Civil  Suit  No.527 of  2007 filed  by the

respondent for damages before the High Court of Judicature

at Madras be transferred to the High Court of Calcutta.

2. According  to  the  petitioner,  the  marriage  between  the

parties took place and was registered on 2nd March 2005.  The

boubhat  ceremony  was  held  on  17th June,  2005  in  West

Bengal.  

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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.

6

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

…….……………………..J.      (Harjit Singh Bedi)

New Delhi; November 17, 2008.

7