The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK TRP(C) No.336 of 2024 Priyadarshan Dash ….... Petitioner Sagarika Satapathy ....... Opposite Party -Versus- Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Mr. Biswaranjan Dalai, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. Malaya Kumar Mishra, Advocate ................... CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Date of Hearing & Judgment: 23.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________ S.K. MISHRA, J. 1. This Transfer Petition has been filed by the Petitioner- husband for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.196 of 2023, now pending before the Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur, to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri on the grounds detailed in the Transfer Petition. 2. A written objection has been filed by the Opposite Party-wife opposing to the prayer for transfer on the ground that that she has filed C.P. No.196 of 2023 for divorce before the Judge, Page 1 of 8 Family Court, Jagatsinghpur. Though in Paragraph No.4 of the Counter it has been stated that she has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
Legal Reasoning
2005 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Kujang so also lodged an FIR before the Kujang Police Station in the district of Jagatsinghpur alleging torture against the Petitioner-husband, wherein she has allegedly adduced evidence as P.W.1, no case numbers have been furnished in the Counter. 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner- husband so also Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife. 4. Relying on the pay slip of the Opposite Party-wife issued by the DEO, Puri as at Annexure-3, so also averments made in paragraph Nos.3 and 5 of the Transfer Petition, Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-husband submits, the Opposite Party-wife is a government servant and at present working as an Assistant Teacher at Maa Uttarayani Vidyapitha, Satasankha under the district of Puri, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Judge, Family Court, Puri. Mr. Dalai further submits, C.P. No.339 of 2023, which has been preferred by the Petitioner-husband before the Judge, Family Court, Puri for restitution of conjugal life, the Opposite Party-wife has appeared in Page 2 of 8 the said case, already filed her written statement and trial is about to commence in the said case. Further, no attempt has been made by the Opposite Party-wife for transfer of C.P. No.339 of 2023 from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur. Mr. Dalai further submits, if C.P. No.196 of 2023 is transferred to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri, it will be convenient for the Opposite Party-wife to attend the said proceeding in the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri, as she is at present serving as an Assistant Teacher at Maa Uttarayani Vidyapitha, Satasankha under the district of Puri, which is hardly around 25 K.Ms. away from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri. 5. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 (N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha), Mr. Dalai, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-husband further submits, since the Petitioner-husband has preferred C.P. No.339 of 2023 for restitution of conjugal life before the Judge, Family Court, Puri, whereas, the Opposite Party- wife has preferred C.P. No.196 of 2023 for divorce before the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur, if both the proceedings are tried differently by different Courts, it may lead to conflicting judgments and multiplicity in trial. Page 3 of 8 6. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife submits, marriage was solemnized at Jagatsinghpur. After marriage both the parties resided at Bhubaneswar. Hence, the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain C.P. No.339 of 2023. Mr. Mishra further submits, though the Petitioner-husband is a resident of Bhubaneswar, intentionally, to harass the Opposite Party, C.P. No.339 of 2023 has been filed at Puri. 7. A query being made, as to whether the Opposite Party- wife, who is the Opposite Party in C.P. No.339 of 2023, has taken such a stand in her written statement filed before the Judge, Family Court, Puri regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife is unable to apprise this Court as to whether such a stand has been taken by her in C.P. No.339 of 2023. However, he admits that the Opposite Party-wife is at present serving as an Assistant Teacher at Maa Uttarayani Vidyapitha, Satasankha in the district of Puri and regarding her appearance in C.P. No.339 of 2023 and contesting the said case before the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri, by filing a written statement in the said case so also the fact that she has not filed any application before this Court for transfer of C.P. No.339 of 2023 from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri to the Page 4 of 8 Court of Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur for trial of both C.P. No.339 of 2023 and C.P. No.196 of 2023 together. 8. Further, a query being made, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife is unable to apprise this Court the case numbers, which are allegedly pending before the Court at Jagatsinghpur and the present status of said cases. 9. Law is well settled that, 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 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. 10. The Petitioner-husband has filed this transfer petition for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.196 of 2023 initiated by the Opposite Party-wife for divorce at Jagatsinghpur to Puri on various grounds, including the ground of pendency of C.P. No.339 of 2023, which has been filed by him for restitution of conjugal life. The prayers made in the C.Ps., being contrary to each other, this Court is of the view that both the said proceedings should be tried together to avoid multiplicity in trial and conflicting decisions. Page 5 of 8 11. At this juncture, it would be apt to deal with the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 (N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha), wherein it is held as follows:- “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 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.” 12. Hence, after going through the pleadings so also taking note of the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the settled position of law and the observations of this Court, as detailed above, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made in the transfer petition. 13. Accordingly, the Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur is directed to transmit the case record in C.P No.196 of 2023 to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 14. Since pleadings in C.P. No.339 of 2023 so also in C.P. No.196 of 2023 are complete, on receiving the case record in C.P. No.196 of 2023 from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Page 6 of 8 Jagatsinghpur, the Judge, Family Court, Puri shall re-register C.P. No.196 of 2023, if so required, and shall do well to try both the proceedings together and proceed further in accordance with law giving due opportunity to both the parties. 15. For convenience of the parties ,the Judge, Family Court, Puri 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, if so prayed . 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 Court of Judge, Family Court, Puri. 16. Since pleadings are complete in both the cases, to avoid delay and notice, the parties are directed to make a query themselves or through their counsel regarding the date and purpose of posting of C.P. No.196 of 2023, and attend the Court of the Judge, Family Court at Puri. Both the parties are further directed not to ask for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the Judge, Family Court, Puri, who shall do well to conclude Page 7 of 8 both the proceedings, i.e., C.P. No.339 of 2023 so also C.P. No.196 of 2023, at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur. 17. With the said observation and direction, the transfer
Decision
petition stands disposed of. 18. Interim order dated 05.11.2024 passed in I.A. No.348 of 2024 stands vacated. 19. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur so also the Judge, Family Court, Puri for compliance. 20. Urgent certified copy of the judgment be granted on proper application as per rules. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, 23rd July, 2025/ Kanhu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KANHU BEHERA Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:27:00 Page 8 of 8