The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 02. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK TRP(C) No.234 of 2025 Bighnesh Mahapatra …. Petitioner Mr. Manas Kumar Chand, Advocate Shwetangshi Mishra …. Opposite Party -versus- None CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 25.09.2025 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dated 19.08.2025, though notice was issued to the Opposite Party-wife by Registered Post with A.D., the same has returned undelivered with postal endorsement “Absent”. 3. Hence, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1989 SC 630 (M/s. Madan & Co. Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand), in (1999) 7 SCC 510 (K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & anr.), in (2006) 6 SCC 456 (D. Vinod Shivappa Vs. Nanda Belliappa), in (2007) 6 SCC 555 (C.C. Alivi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed & anr.) and in (2014) 12 SCC 685 (Ajeet Seeds Limited Vs. K. Gopal Krishnaiah), notice on the Opposite Party is held to be sufficient. However, the Opposite Party-wife goes unrepresented when the matter is called. 4. The Petitioner-husband, who is the Petitioner in C.P. No.267 of 2025, has preferred this transfer petition for transfer of proceeding of the said C.P., from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 5. Such a prayer has made basically on the ground that C.P. No.352 of 2025 filed by the Opposite Party-wife under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce, is now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the Petitioner-husband has filed C.P. No.267 of 2025 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. Similarly, the Opposite Party-wife has filed C.P. No.352 of 2025, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 with the self-same prayer before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits, since the Opposite Party-wife is staying in Cuttack and has filed an application with similar prayer, she will no-way be prejudiced, if the application filed by the Petitioner- husband before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar is transferred and tagged to C.P. No.352 of 2025, pending at her instance before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, for analogous hearing. 8. With all fairness, learned Counsel for the Petitioner- husband further submits, while considering the transfer Page 2 of 5 petitions in matrimonial cases, convenience of the wife must be looked at. Hence, consciously the Petitioner- husband has made such a prayer for transfer of proceeding from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack, looking into the convenience of the Opposite Party-wife. 9. Law is well settled that while dealing with transfer petitions in matrimonial cases, 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 held 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 their behavioural 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, the spouses and 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 common question of fact and law, and when the Page 3 of 5 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) 10. In view of the reasons detailed in the transfer petition so also submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the settled position of law, the transfer petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission, directing the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar to transmit the case record in C.P. No.267 of 2025, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. On receiving the case record in C.P. No.267 of 2025 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack shall re-register the said case, if so required, and proceed further in accordance with law giving due opportunity to both the parties. 12. Since C.P. No.352 of 2025, at the instance of the Opposite Party-wife, is also pending before the same Court, for convenience of both the parties and the settled position of law, both C.P. No.267 of 2025 as well as C.P. No.352 of 2025 be tried together. 13. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is also requested to explore the facilities of Video Conferencing Page 4 of 5 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, if so prayed for. However, it is made clear that, 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 at any point of time, the parties shall remain physically present before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. 14. To avoid delay, both the parties are directed not to ask for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, who shall do well to conclude both the proceedings in C.P. No.267 of 2025 and C.P. No.352 of 2025 at the earliest. 15. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar so also the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for compliance. 16. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules. Kanhu JUDGE (S. K. MISHRA) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 26-Sep-2025 17:44:22 Page 5 of 5