The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 Jitendra Kumar Das …. Petitioner Pallabi Biswal …. Opposite Party -versus- TRPCRL No.15 of 2025 Jitendra Kumar Das …. Petitioner Pallabi Biswal & others …. Opposite Parties -versus- TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 Jitendra Kumar Das …. Petitioner Pallabi Biswal …. Opposite Party -versus- TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 Pallabi Biswal …. Petitioner Jitendra Kumar Das …. Opposite Party -versus-
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate (In TRP(C) No.40 of 2025, TRPCRL Nos.15 & 16 of 2025) For Petitioner : B.K. Mishra, Advocate (In TRP(C) No.11 of 2025) Page 1 of 11 For Opposite Party : Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate (In TRP(C) No.40 of 2025, TRPCRL Nos.15 & 16 of 2025) For Opposite Party : Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate (In TRP(C) No.11 of 2025) ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Date of Hearing & Judgment: 14.08.2025 _____________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner- wife for transfer of C.P. No.207 of 2024, which has been filed by the Opposite Party-husband before the learned Judge, Family Court Baripada under Section 13(i)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, whereas, TRPCRL No.15 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-husband for transfer of D.V. Misc. Case No.214 of 2024, which has been filed by the Opposite Party-wife under Section 12 of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore, to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Baripada. TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 has also been filed by the Petitioner-husband for transfer of proceeding in Cr.P. No.382 of 2024, which has been filed by the Opposite Party-wife under section 144 of B.N.S.S., Page 2 of 11 2023 for maintenance before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada. Similarly, TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-husband for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.761 of 2024 initiated by the Opposite Party-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the Judge, Family Court, Balasore, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada. 2. Since the issue involved in all the transfer petitions are pertaining to transfer of various matrimonial proceedings initiated either at the instance of the wife or husband, on consent of learned Counsel for the parties, all the transfer petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal together at the stage of admission. 3. So far as transfer petitions i.e. TRPCRL No.15 of 2025, TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 are concerned, as it seems from the pleadings made in the said transfer petitions, the grounds urged in all the said applications are same. 4. Mr. Jena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-husband, reiterating the grounds urged in the aforesaid transfer petitions submits, the distance from Balasore to Baripada is only 50 KMs., having well communication facility. The Opposite Party-wife is regularly attending her office at Baripada, for which, she will never Page 3 of 11 feel any inconvenience, if the proceedings initiated by her are transferred from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada. Mr. Jena further submits, the Opposite Party-wife is contesting one of the cases, i.e. C.P. No.207 of 2024, at Baripada. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife in the aforesaid three transfer petitions submits, his client is no more serving in Baripada. She has left the said job since long, for which, being directed by this Court, an Affidavit has been filed in TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 enclosing thereto documentary evidence regarding her present place of working. 6. Drawing attention of this Court to the documents appended to the said Affidavit, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife submits, his client is at present working as a Social Worker in an Old Age home at Balasore and getting an honorarium of Rs.6,000/- per month with effect from 01.01.2025 to maintain her livelihood after her desertion. Drawing attention towards the averments made in the said Affidavit, Mr. Mishra further submits, the Opposite Party-wife was staying with her husband in the matrimonial house at Baripada. Then she was working as Manager in a Specialized Adoption Agency under the NGO, Rural Development Action Cell at Palabania, Baripada in the Page 4 of 11 district of Mayurbhanj. However, due to continuous physical and mental torture by her husband so also other family members, the dispute arose between the parties, for which she was forced to leave her matrimonial house at Baripada and since then, she is residing under the care of her grandfather namely, Ananta Kumar Biswal at Sahadevkhunta in Balasore. 7. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife in the aforesaid three transfer petitions submits, his client has filed TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.207 of 2024 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, which is under consideration before this Court. Hence, it is no more open for the Petitioner-husband to take such a ground in the aforesaid transfer petitions to transfer the said proceedings to Baripada under the plea that C.P. No.207 of 2024 at her instance is pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada. 8. Apart from that, drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph Nos.12 & 13 of TRP(C) No.11 of 2025, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife submits, since his client is residing at Balasore, which is around 60 Kms. away from Baripada and she being a hopeless and hapless lady, it will be very difficult on her part to come to Baripada to attend the Court Page 5 of 11 proceeding in all the three cases, wherein she is the Petitioner and those cases have been rightly instituted by her at Balasore, as she is residing at Balasore. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife in TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 further submits, C.P. No.761 of 2024 has been initiated by his client under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, C.P. No.383 of 2025 has been filed under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 for maintenance and D.V. Misc. Case No.214 of 2024 is now pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore initiated under Section 12 of P.W.D.V. Act, 2005. Hence, the convenience of the Petitioner-wife is the paramount consideration for transfer of matrimonial proceedings as per the settled position of law, so also for convenience of other witnesses, who are located in and around Balasore. Apart from that, the proceeding in C.P. No.207 of 2024, initiated by the husband for divorce, pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada deserves to be transferred from Baripada to Balasore for analogous hearing along with C.P. No.761 of 2024, initiated by the Petitioner-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. 9. Mr. Mishra further submits, since the Opposite Party- husband and most of the witnesses in C.P. No.207 of 2024 are living in and around Baripada, the Petitioner reasonably Page 6 of 11 apprehends that they may threat and harass her, if she attends the proceeding in the said case at Baripada. That apart, the father of the Petitioner is also suffering from various old age ailments and he will not be in a position to accompany the Petitioner to attend the Court proceeding at Baripada on each and every date of posting, as there is no other male member in her family to support her to attend the proceeding at Baripada. That apart, the Opposite Party-husband is an influential person of the locality for which, the Petitioner is also under apprehension of danger to her life in attending the Court proceeding at Baripada. 10. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife in TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 further submits, law is well settled that in matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is the paramount consideration. The Petitioner, being a destitute lady, it would be very inconvenient on her part to attend the Court proceeding at Baripada. He further submits, his client has filed C.P. No.761 of 2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance, whereas the Opposite Party-husband filed C.P. No.207 of 2024 under Section 13(i)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. As per the settled position of law, both the said proceedings need to be heard together to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings and conflicting of judgments. Page 7 of 11 11. In view of the allegations made by the Petitioner- husband in TRPCRL No.15 of 2025, TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.40 of 2025, this Court passed an order in TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 on 09.07.2025 with regard to her present address so also occupation with documentary proof, if any. On being so directed, the Opposite Party-wife in TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 has also filed an Affidavit as has been detailed above with documentary evidence to substantiate the pleadings made in the Affidavit. 12. Law is well settled that, while dealing with a transfer application regarding transfer of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the wife must be looked at and proceedings involving common question of fact and law to be tried together. In (N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha), reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, the Supreme Court observed as follows: “9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioral pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer. 10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise Page 8 of 11 common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.” (Emphasis Supplied) 13 Hence, taking into consideration the averments made in the aforesaid transfer petitions, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the settled position of law, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the Petitioner-wife in TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 and reject the prayers made by the Petitioner-husband in TRPCRL No.15 of 2025, TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.40 of 2025. At this stage, Mr. Jena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-husband in TRPCRL No.15 of 2025, TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.40 of 2025, prays for permitting his client to appear through virtual mode in all the aforesaid cases, if so required. 14 Accordingly, the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada is directed to transmit the case record in C.P No.207 of 2024 to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Balasore at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 15. On receiving the case record in C.P. No.207 of 2024 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada, the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore shall re-register the said Page 9 of 11 case, if so required, and proceed further in accordance with law giving due opportunity to both the parties. 16. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, C.P. No.207 of 2024 be tagged to C.P. No.761 of 2024. Since Cr.P. No.382 of 2024, at the instance of the Petitioner-wife, is also pending before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, for convenience of parties, C.P. No.207 of 2024 and C.P. No.761 of 2024 and Cr.P. No.382 of 2024 be tried together by posting the said cases to same date. 17. The learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore is requested to explore the facilities of video conferencing available in the said Court and permit the parties to appear before him through virtual mode following due procedure, as prescribed under the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020. However, on the dates of effective hearing i.e. for examination and cross- examination of witnesses and other purposes, for which their presence may be required by the Court and if it is so ordered, the parties shall remain physically present before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. 18. To avoid delay and notice, both the parties are directed to make a query themselves or through their counsel regarding the date and purpose of posting of C.P. No.207 of 2024 and C.P. Page 10 of 11 No.761 of 2024 and Cr.P. No.382 of 2024 and attend the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. Both the parties are further directed not to ask for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, who shall do well to conclude the said proceedings at the earliest. 19. With the said observation and direction, all the transfer
Decision
petitions stand disposed of. 20. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada so also to the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore for compliance. 21. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 14th August, 2025/ Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 15-Aug-2025 14:19:01 Page 11 of 11