Rachana Pothal Vs Debasis Patra — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2025)

Rachana Pothal Vs Debasis Patra — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Transfer of C.P. No.280 of 2024 from Family Court, Puri to Family Court, Dhenkanal refused; petitioner-wife left at liberty to seek permission to appear through virtual mode, with the Court concerned directed not to insist on her personal attendance unless absolutely necessary.

Issue for consideration

Whether, under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Civil Proceeding No.280 of 2024 (petition under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights) pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri should be transferred to the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal for the convenience of the petitioner-wife who resides at Dhenkanal and has to travel around 145 KMs.

Court's answer

The Court declines the prayer for transfer of C.P. No.280 of 2024 because, on consideration of the rival submissions, most of the material witnesses belong to the district of Puri, where the proceeding is stated to be pending.

Ratio / Principle

The transfer petition is dismissed, the Court declining to entertain the application for transfer.

Key takeaways

It is open to the petitioner-wife to seek permission of the Court concerned to appear through virtual mode, and if such a prayer is made the Court concerned shall not insist upon her personal attendance unless absolutely necessary.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Transfer Petition (Civil) under Section 24 CPC – Husband's petition under Section 9, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights (Civil Proceeding No.280 of 2024) pending before learned Judge, Family Court, Puri – Petitioner-wife, residing with her parents at Dhenkanal and required to cover around 145 KMs to attend proceedings at Puri, sought transfer to Family Court, Dhenkanal – Opposite Party contended most material witnesses are residents of Puri and transfer would inconvenience them – Held, considering that most of the material witnesses belong to the district of Puri where C.P. No.280 of 2024 is pending, the Court declined to transfer the proceeding; transfer petition dismissed – Petitioner-wife free to seek permission of the Court concerned to appear through virtual mode, and such Court shall not insist on her personal attendance unless absolutely necessary – Related: wife's earlier S.125 CrPC case (Cr.P No.33 of 2024, Family Court, Dhenkanal) already disposed on 12.02.2025; companion TRPCRL No.121 of 2024 disposed same day.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK TRP(C) No.346 of 2024

Rachana Pothal

…. Petitioner

Mr. Umakant Sahoo, Advocate

-versus-

Debasis Patra

…. Opposite Party Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

Order No. 03.

ORDER

04.04.2025

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

It is submitted by Mr. Umakanta Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the marriage between the Petitioner and the Opposite Party was solemnized at Sakhigopal in the district of Puri as per the Hindu rites and customs in the presence of the family members, friends and relatives. However, since there was discord between the husband and wife, the Opposite Party-husband has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, registered as Civil Proceeding No.280 of 2024, which is stated to be pending before the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri.

2.1. This transfer petition is filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of the aforesaid Civil Proceeding No.280 of 2024 to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal at the behest of the Petitioner-wife.

2.2. Mr. Umakanta Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the

Page 1 of 3

Petitioner submitted that since the Petitioner-wife is residing with her parents at Dhenkanal and is required to cover around 145 KMs from her residence to attend the proceeding before the Court at Puri, which causes inconvenience for her. Therefore, the aforesaid Civil Proceeding No.280 of 2024, stated to be pending in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri, is required to be transferred to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal for her convenience in attending the Court proceedings on each date.

Mr. Gopinath Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party submitted that the aforesaid submission of Mr. Umakanta Shaoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is not on sound ground. Merely because the Petitioner resides in Dhenkanal, the civil Proceeding does not deserve to be transferred to Dhenkanal, the place of residence of the Petitioner-wife.

3.1. It is forcefully contended that most of the material witnesses being resident in the district of Puri, transfer of the said C.P. No.280 of 2024, would rather cause more inconvenience for all the witnesses attend the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal. Hence, he fervently requested not to allow the present petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Considered the rival submissions and perused the record. On the consideration of the fact most of the material witnesses belong to the district of Puri, where the C.P. No.280 of 2024 has been stated to be pending, this Court declines to show indulgence by

Page 2 of 3

transferring the Civil Proceeding to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal.

It is also noteworthy to mention here that the Petitioner-wife filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, registered as Cr.P No.33 of 2024, in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal, which stood disposed of vide judgment dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal. Such fact is considered while disposing of TRPCRL No.121 of 2024, which is disposed of today.

In view of the above, this Court disposes of this transfer petition declining to entertain this application for transfer, which is, therefore, dismissed. It will be open to the Petitioner-wife 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.

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

(M.S. Raman) Judge

Suchitra

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUCHITRA BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTA CK Date: 04-Apr-2025 13:19:49

Page 3 of 3