Mamata Sahoo Vs Aswini Kumar Sahoo

2. This transfer petition has been filed by the Petitionerwife, who is also the Petitioner in C.P. No.984 of 2021, pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, for transfer of the said proceeding to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on the grounds urged in the Transfer Petition.

¶16

3. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶17

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the Opposite Party-husband has filed C.P. No.93 of 2019 under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce, which is now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for trial. Whereas, C.P. No.984 of 2021 has been filed by the Petitioner-wife before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar under Section

¶18

9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right. He further submits, though the present Petitioner preferred TRP(C) No.122 of 2024 for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.93 of 2019 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, the said transfer petition stood disposed of rejecting the prayer for transfer of C.P. No.93 of 2019. However, liberty was granted to the Petitioner to appear through virtual mode.

¶19

5. Mr. Nayak further submits, unless the proceeding in C.P. No.984 of 2021 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar is transferred to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and is heard along with C.P. No.93 of 2019, the same may lead to multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting of judgments. Hence, he prays for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.984 of 2021 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for analogous hearing along with C.P. No.93 of 2019.

¶20

6. 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:

¶21

“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

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

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 the spouses and 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 socioeconomic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer .

¶24

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.”

¶25

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶26

7. Admittedly, TRP(C) No.122 of 2024, preferred by the Petitioner-wife stood dismissed on 13.05.2024 with the following observation:

¶27

“ 4. Under such circumstances, the transfer application is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move the Court below, if so advised, for permission to appear through virtual mode and in such event, the Court below shall consider the prayer in accordance with law. Further, the Court below shall not insist upon the personal appearance of the petitioner on the dates of the posting of the case unless absolutely necessary .”

¶28

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

8. Admittedly, at the instance of the Opposite Partyhusband, C.P. No.93 of 2019 filed under Section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce is now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, whereas, at the instance of the Petitioner-wife, C.P. No.984 of 2021 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right is pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. In view of the settled position of law, in order to avoid delay, the transfer petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission without noticing the Opposite Party-husband, as he will no way be prejudiced, if the prayer made in the present transfer petition is allowed without noticing and hearing him.

¶31

9. In view of the reasons detailed in the transfer petition so also submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the settled position of law, as detailed above, the prayer made in the transfer petition is allowed. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar is directed to transmit the case record in C.P. No.984 of 2021 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.

¶32

10. On receiving the case record in C.P. No.984 of 2021 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.

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

11. As C.P. No.93 of 2019 filed by the Opposite Partyhusband for divorce is pending before the same Court, since the decisions in C.P. No.984 of 2021 and C.P. No.93 of 2019 are interdependent, both C.P. No.984 of 2021 and C.P. No.93 of 2019 be tried together.

¶35

12. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is requested to explore the facilities of Video Conferencing available in the said Court and permit the Petitioner-wife to appear before him through virtual mode in terms of previous order dated 13.05.2024 passed in TRP(C) No.122 of 2024 following due procedure, as prescribed under the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020. However, on the dates of effective hearing i.e. for examination and cross-examination of witnesses and other purposes, for which her presence may be required by the Court and if it is so ordered, the Petitioner shall remain physically present before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.

¶36

13. Since C.P. No.93 of 2019 is pending for the last six years whereas C.P. No.984 of 2021 is pending for the last four years, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack shall do well to conclude both the proceedings at the earliest, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the record in C.P. No.984 of 2021 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

¶37

14. 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.

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

15. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on

¶40

proper application as per rules.

(S.K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Prasant

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 03-Sep-2025 12:42:38

¶46

Page 6 of 6

Mamata Sahoo v. Aswini Kumar Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamata Sahoo v. Aswini Kumar Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cheru Meher Vs Tulsi Meher

Rasmita Pradhan Vs Sanjib Pradhan

Susmita Ashe @ Sharma Vs Milind Sharma

M/S Maa Tarini Rice Mill, Ganjam Vs State of Odisha

Yanapu Satya Prasad Vs Yanapu Aruna

B.Papa Rao Vs the Authorised Officer