Smt. Priya Deb v. Sri Sanjit Rudra Paul
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M S RAMACHANDRA RAO
Outcome
Allowed
this application is allowed, and T
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Since these allegations have not been rebutted by the respondent, this application is allowed, and T.S. (Divorce) 317 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura is transferred to the Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District. (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)…
Judgment
Tr.P.(C). No.27 of 2025 Smt. Priya Deb, Wife of Sri Sanjit Rudra Paul, Daughter of Sri Dilip Deb, resident of Village- Dhuchikhola, P.O. Ichachhara, P.S. Kakraban, District- Gomati, Tripura, Pin-799105, aged about 26 years, by profession- Household work, by faith Hindu, Citizen of India Versus .........Petitioner(s) Sri Sanjit Rudra Paul, Son of Sri Shailesh Rudra Paul, resident of Nandannagar (Near ICDS Centre), P.O. Nandannagar, P.S. N.C.C, District- West Tripura, Pin-799006 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitai Chowdhury, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO ..........Respondent(s) 21/11/2025 Order This application has been filed under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of T.S. (Divorce) 317 of 2025 pending on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura to the Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District.
Notice in this application was issued to the respondent, and though it has been served, the respondent has not chosen to contest this application.
In this application it is contended that the petitioner is residing at Village Dhuchikhola under Kakraban Police Station in Gomati District with her parents, and that she is unable to travel to Agartala to contest the divorce case filed by the respondent against her.
Operative part
Since these allegations have not been rebutted by the respondent, this application is allowed, and T.S. (Divorce) 317 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura is transferred to the Family Court, Udaipur, Gomati District. (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ) Pijush/ PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: this application is allowed, and T
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 24.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.