Intention to harass wife must be discouraged: Calcutta HC dismisses husband's case transfer plea

The Calcutta High Court recently dismissed a plea moved by a husband for transferring the case for maintenance filed by his wife. Court observed that the husband's intention prima facie appeared to only cause inconvenience or harass his wife.

"Such motive and purpose of the husband should be discouraged by the Court," said the bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul).

The single judge bench noted that in his revision plea, the husband had prayed that the case filed by his wife may be transferred to any Court of law except Burdwan, where the wife was currently residing, which prima facie proved his ill-intentions.

The wife had filed the case seeking maintenance before the Burdwan Court. The husband had challenged its maintainability before the Burdwan Magistrate Court on the ground that being a resident of Kolkata, the wife could not file an application outside its jurisdiction. However, the Judicial Magistrate had rejected the husband's petition.

Before the high court, in his revision plea, the husband stated that though the wife had filed a criminal case under Section 498A of the IPC before a police station in Kolkata, she filed the application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Burdwan Court only to harass him.

He claimed that it was his wife who used to pick fights with him during their conjugal life in Hyderabad and left home to go live with her parents. He stated that in spite of all these facts and circumstances, as he wanted to live peacefully with his wife, he filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights before the City Civil Court at Hyderabad, however, all of a sudden he received notice for an application under Section 125 of CrPC filed by his wife before a local court at Burdwan.

The husband claimed that Bansdroni, Kolkata was the real residence of his wife and her father but she filed the application for maintenance against him with an ulterior motive and with a view to harass him at Burdwan. He claimed that his wife wanted to put pressure on him by filing a case in Burdwan so that he withdraws various cases that he had filed against her in Kolkata.

On the other hand, the counsel for the wife contended that as per her Voter ID, the wife was originally a resident of Burdwan, and therefore only she had filed the maintenance case there.

Regarding the case under Section 498A of the IPC filed in Kolkata, the counsel countered that at the time of lodging that case for mental and physical cruelty, the wife was residing in Kolkata but subsequently she went back to her ancestral home in Burdwan and it is convenient for her to pursue her case for maintenance before the Burdwan Court which is permissible under the law.

Court referred to the ruling of the Top Court in Vijay Kumar Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2004) relating to jurisdiction in terms of Section 126 of the CrPC as to where an application can be filed.

It noted that as per the judgment, Section 126 of the CrPC has essentially enlarged the venue of the proceedings for maintenance so as to move the place where the wife may be residing on the date of application and the said change was brought in taking note of the fact that often deserted wife is compelled to live with their relatives far away from the place where the husband and wife last resided together.

Therefore, taking note of the specific prayer made by the husband to transfer his wife's case anywhere except Burdwan, the court dismissed his plea.

Case Title: Sk. Sirajuddin Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.