Allowed

Banishree Sahoo@Sima Sahoo@Roul v. Susant Ku.Roul

Orissa HC4 Mar 2016TRP(C)/59/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court transferred a matrimonial case (MAT Case No. 394 of 2015) from the Civil Judge at Athagarh to the Family Court at Cuttack. The transfer was granted due to the wife's residence at Cuttack, her lack of independent income, and her inability to travel to Athagarh, aligning with the apex court's view on considering the wife's convenience.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Civil Judge, Athagarh to transmit MAT Case No. 394 of 2015 to the Family Court, Cuttack.

Banishree Sahoo@Sima Sahoo@Roul Vs Susant Ku.Roul — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2016)

¶1

TRP(C) No.59 of 2016
04.03.2016

¶2

 This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been file
d to transfer MAT Case No.394 of 2015 pending in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div
n.), Athagarh to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.

¶3

 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶4

 Opposite party is the husband of the petitioner. He filed an application under
 Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Athagarh
, which is registered as MAT Case No.394 of 2015. The grievance of the petitioner is that she
is residing with her parents at Cuttack. She has no independent income. It is not possible on
her part to go to Athagarh to attend the court.

¶5

 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.

¶6

 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 Civil Judge (S
r. Divn.), Athagarh to the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.

¶7

 In view of the same, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Athagarh is directed to
transmit the MAT Case No.394 of 2015 to the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack,
 immediately after production of a certified copy of this order.

¶8

 Since the order is passed at the stage of admission, the opposite party is at
liberty to file an application for variance/recall of the order, if he so likes.

¶9

 With the aforesaid observation and direction, the TRP (C) is allowed.

¶10

 Dr.A.K.Rath, J.

¶11

Banishree Sahoo@Sima Sahoo@Roul v. Susant Ku.Roul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banishree Sahoo@Sima Sahoo@Roul v. Susant Ku.Roul

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harekrushna Panda Vs Subasini Panda

Anusuya Choudhury Vs State of Orissa

M.Satyanarayana Vs State of Orissa

Tapan Ku.Nayak Vs Sub-Collector,Koraput

Karpura Mohanty Vs Sub-Collector,Koraput

Ramamani Mohapatra Vs Basanti Patra