Bharatee Podha Vs Nandi Kishor Bagarti

The petitioner, by filing this application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has prayed for transfer of Civil Proceeding No.52 of 2024 stated to be pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani in the district of Kandhamal to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh on the ground that the petitioner-wife along with her minor child is facing difficulty in travelling from Dasapalla in the district of Nayagarh to the Court of learned Judge Family Court, Phulbani.

¶12

Mr. Niraj Kumar Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-wife has filed a petition under Section 12 (1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 being CMC (D.V.) Case No.55 of 2024 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dasapalla whereas, the

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

opposite party-husband has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the petitioner-wife.

¶15

3.1 It is conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the petition, it is stated that the Court of learned Judge Family Court at Kandhamal is over 300 k.ms. from the present residence of the petitioner but in fact, the actual distance is approximately 80 k.ms.

¶16

Mr. Sibani Shankar Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite party-husband referring to objection filed on behalf of the opposite party submitted that the petitioner is not only a working woman but also holds a higher post drawing handsome salary. Since the petitioner is a highly educated and financially sound person, there is no inconvenience in attending the Court at Phulbani. He vehemently opposed such request for transfer by the petitioner.

¶17

4.1. He submitted that there is no necessity to transfer the case to the learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani when the petitioner can very well attend and participate in the proceeding before the court concerned through virtual mode. 5. Considering the contention of the counsel for both the parties, this Court is not inclined to entertain this transfer petition solely on the ground of inconvenience in travelling to attend the Court. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek permission of the Court concerned to appear through virtual mode. In the event such a prayer is made, the Court concerned shall not insist upon the personal attendance of the petitioner unless absolutely necessary.

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

With the aforesaid observation, this TRP(C) stands disposed of.

¶20

A copy of this order be communicated to the Court of the learned Judge, Family, Court, Phulbani at Kandhamal forthwith. 8. In view of the aforesaid order, pending I.A., if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶21

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶22

Aswini

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-Charge) Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Apr-2025 17:16:14

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Bharatee Podha v. Nandi Kishor Bagarti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharatee Podha v. Nandi Kishor Bagarti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashmi Roshan@Nigar Vs Union of India

Rajesh Chandra Tripathy Vs Union of India

Neelamadhab Sahoo Vs Mamina Mahana

Ajaya Ku.Mishra Vs State and Ors.

Subrat Ram Vs Santosh Kumar Upadhyay, Chairman, S.S.B, Odisha Police

Akshya Kumar Swain Vs Prava Das