Petitioner challenged jurisdiction of Family Court, Bhubaneswar in a Section 125 maintenance case, claiming incorrect residence. Court upheld jurisdiction under Section 126 Cr.P.C., rejected transfer, and disposed of petition noting ICT facilities available upon separate prayer.
Prayer for transfer of petition rejected. Petition disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
TRPCRL No.117 of 2024
Anirudha Patra
Petitioner
Mr. Biswaranjan Dalai, Advocate
-versus-
Soumya Das
Opp. Party
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
03.05.2025
Order No.
05.
(Hybrid Mode)
1 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.
2. The petitioner in the petition seeks transfer of C.R.P. No.83 of 2024 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar to the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur. C.R.P. No.83 of 2024 has been filed by the wife before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (since repealed).
3. The procedure for proceeding under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is prescribed in Section 126 of the Cr.P.C. The Section 126 of the Cr. P.C. is reproduced herein:
xxx xxx xxx xxx”
Page 1 of 2
4. On being asked whether the provision in Section 126 regarding place of initiating the proceeding is in any manner has been violated, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the address of residence of the petitioner given in the petition at Bhubaneswar is not correct. However, it is not disputed that the wife has given her address at Bhubaneswar, the C.R.P. petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. has been filed before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar having jurisdiction.
5 . In view of the clear statutory mandate as provided in Section 126 of the Cr. P.C., the prayer for transfer of the petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P.C. i.e. C.R.P. No.83 of 2024 from the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur is rejected.
6 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband may be allowed to utilize the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) facility available. The facility such as virtual Court, virtual hearing etc. for which husband shall move the court in seisin of the matter. If any such prayer is made, the Court shall pass orders in accordance with law for extending the ICT facilities for conducting hearing of the case to either of the parties.
7 . The petition stands disposed of.
(M.S. Sahoo) Judge
Signature Not Verified
jyostna Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 07-May-2025 12:20:12
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court at Bhubaneswar had jurisdiction under Section 126 Cr.P.C. to entertain a maintenance petition despite the petitioner's claim of incorrect residence.
Whether the transfer of C.R.P. No.83 of 2024 from Bhubaneswar to Jagatsinghpur should be allowed.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Anirudha Patra
Soumya Das
M.S. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
