The Single Judge allowed a transfer application under Section 24 CPC, directing the Family Court, Bhubaneswar, to transfer C.P. No.239 of 2014 to the Family Court, Rourkela, citing wife's convenience and distance.
The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar is directed to transmit C.P. No.239 of 2014 to the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
TRP(C) No.183 of 2015
12.11.2015 This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been file
d to transfer C.P. No.239 of 2014 pending in the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhu
baneswar to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Opposite party is the husband of the petitioner. He filed an application under
Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, whi
ch is registered as C.P. No.239 of 2014. The grievance of the petitioner is that she is residi
ng with her maternal aunty at Rourkela along with her child. She has no independent income. It
is not possible on her part to go to Bhubaneswar, which is about 400 kms. away from her resid
ence.
The apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 20
02 SC 396 held that wifes convenience must be looked at while considering the application for
transfer of the case.
Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the averments made in the application, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice w
ould be better served, if the case is transferred from the court of the learned Judge, Family
Court, Bhubaneswar to the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela.
In view of the same, learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar is directed to t
ransmit the C.P. No.239 of 2014 to the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, imm
ediately after production of a certified copy of this order.
Since the order is passed at the stage of admission, the opposite party is at
liberty to file an application for variance of the order, if he so likes.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the TRP (C) is allowed.
Dr.A.K.Rath, J.
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 24 CPC filed to transfer a family court case to a distant location should be allowed given the petitioner's residence and lack of independent income.
Whether ends of justice would be better served by transferring the case from Bhubaneswar to Rourkela.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sumita Singh v. Kumar SanjayReferred¶3
Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite party
Dr. A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court