Niranjan Badatya Vs Swarnamala Badatya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

TRP(C) No.165 of 2024

Swarnalata Badatya ….... Petitioner -VersusNiranjan Badatya ....... Opposite Party TRPCRL No.72 of 2024 Niranjan Badatya ….... Petitioner -VersusSwarnalata Badatya ....... Opposite Party TRPCRL No.73 of 2024 Niranjan Badatya ….... Petitioner -VersusSwarnalata Badatya ....... Opposite Party Advocate for the parties For Petitioner : Ms. P. Bastia, (In TRPC No.165 of 2024) Advocate For Petitioner : Mr. K.A. Guru, (In TRPCRL Nos.72 & 73 of 2024) Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. K.A. Guru, (In TRPC No.165 of 2024) Advocate For Opposite Party : Ms. P. Bastia, (In TRPCRL Nos.72 & 73 of 2024) Advocate

¶4

Page 1 of 10

¶5

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

¶6

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 10.11.2025

¶7

S.K. MISHRA, J.

¶8

1. TRP(C) No.165 of 2024 has been preferred by the Petitioner-Wife for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.165 of 2024 filed by the Opposite Party-Husband under section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce, now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela.

¶9

2. Similarly, TRPCRL No.72 of 2024 has been preferred by the Petitioner-Husband for transfer of proceeding in Criminal Proceeding No.42 of 2024 initiated by the Opposite Party-Wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance, now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur.

¶10

3. TRPCRL No.73 of 2024 has also been preferred by the Petitioner-Husband for transfer of proceeding in Crl. Misc. Case No.298 of 2023 preferred by the Opposite Party-Wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, now pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (P),

¶11

Page 2 of 10

¶12

Uditnagar, Rourkela, to the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Berhampur.

¶13

4. In all the three transfer petitions, which are on board, the parties being same and the issues pertaining to these transfer petitions, being common, are taken up together for hearing and final disposal vide this common Judgment.

¶14

5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in TRP(C) No.165 of 2024 submits, the Petitioner being a destitute lady having no source of income, is staying with her parents at Rourkela and there is no male member in her matrimonial house to accompany her to travel from Rourkela to Berhampur, which would be around 500 KMs. away. It would be very difficult on her part to travel such a long distance to attend the day to day proceeding in C.P. No.165 of 2024, which is now pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur. She further submits, after her desertion, the Petitioner-Wife has not been paid any amount by the Opposite Party-Husband, even though she has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, which has been registered as Criminal Proceeding No.42 of

¶16

Page 3 of 10

¶17

Hence, without any income to maintain her livelihood so also to bear the litigation and traveling expenses, it would be difficult on her part to attend the proceeding at Berhampur.

¶18

7. Drawing attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraphs-4 & 5 of the transfer petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits, at the instance of the Petitioner-Wife, Crl. Misc. Case No.298 of 2023 filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is now pending before the S.D.J.M. (P), Uditnagar, Rourkela. Though the Opposite Party-Husband is at present working as Software Engineer at Bengaluru, being noticed, he has appeared in both the said proceedings at Rourkela. Even if, it has not been averred in the transfer petition, it has been admitted by the Opposite Party-husband in his transfer petition that, at the instance of the Petitioner-Wife, a proceeding under Section 498A read with Section 4 of D.P. Act, is also pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (P), Uditnagar, Rourkela.

¶19

8. Per contra, Mr. Guru, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-Husband, who is the Petitioner in TRPCRL. Nos.72 & 73, both of 2024, submits that his client is facing much difficulty to attend all the proceedings pending before

¶20

Page 4 of 10

¶21

various Courts at Rourkela. Hence, being compelled, he approached this Court for transfer of those proceedings from Rourkela to Berhampur. He further submits, instead of Berhampur, if all the proceedings are transferred to Bhubaneswar, a place having good flight connectivity; it would be convenient for his client to attend all the proceedings at Bhubaneswar.

¶22

9. Mr. Guru, learned Counsel for the Opposite PartyHusband further submits, if the Petitioner-Wife has any difficulty to appear before the Court at Berhampur, she may approach the concerned Court to permit her to appear through virtual mode.

¶23

10. Law is well settled that, while considering the transfer petitions for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife must be looked at. That apart, law is also well settled that where two or more proceedings are pending before different Courts, which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in those cases are interdependent, the proceedings are to be tried together to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.

¶24

Page 5 of 10

¶25

11. In (N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik

¶26

Sha) , reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, the Supreme Court observed as follows:

¶27

“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 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 behavioral 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 socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer .

¶28

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.”

¶29

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶30

12. Admittedly, the husband has filed C.P. No.165 of 2024 under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce, which is now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court at Berhampur. The wife has filed Criminal Proceeding No.42 of 2024 under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela so also Crl. Misc. Case No.298 of 2023 under Section

¶31

Page 6 of 10

¶32

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the S.D.J.M. (P), Uditnagar, Rourkela. The husband has appeared and is contesting those cases before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court so also S.D.J.M. (P), Uditnagar at Rourkela. That apart, the issue regarding maintenance to be paid to the wife, during pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, also has a bearing with the said matrimonial proceedings. Hence, this Court is of the view that both the proceedings, i.e., C.P. No.165 of 2024 and Criminal Proceeding No.42 of 2024 involve common question of fact and law. Thus, it is desirable that both the aforesaid cases should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflicting decisions.

¶33

13. After taking note of the pleadings on record of each transfer petition, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the settled position of law and the views taken by this Court, as detailed above, this Court is of further view that the prayer made in TRP(C) No.165 of 2024 preferred by the Petitioner-Wife deserves to be allowed whereas; the prayers made by the Petitioner-Husband in TRPCRL No.72 of 2024 and TRPCRL No.73 of 2024 deserve to be rejected. Accordingly,

¶34

Page 7 of 10

¶35

TRP(C) No.165 of 2024 stands disposed of as allowed whereas; TRPCRL No.72 of 2024 and TRPCRL No.73 of 2024 stand dismissed with the following directions and observations.

¶36

14. The learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur is directed to transmit the case record in C.P. No.165 of 2024 to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 15. On receiving the case records in C.P. No.165 of 2024 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela shall re-register the said case, if so required and proceed further in accordance with law giving due opportunity to both the parties.

¶37

16. Since Criminal Proceeding No.42 of 2024, at the instance of the Petitioner-Wife, is pending before the same Court, for convenience of parties, both C.P. No.165 of 2024 and Criminal Proceeding No.42 of 2024 be tried together by posting both the said cases to same date.

¶38

17. The learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela is requested to explore the facilities of Video Conferencing available in the said Court and permit the parties to appear before him

¶39

Page 8 of 10

¶40

through virtual mode 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 their presence may be required by the Court and if it is so ordered, the parties shall remain physically present before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela.

¶41

18. To avoid delay and notice, the parties are directed to make a query themselves or through their Counsel regarding the date and purpose of posting of C.P. Case No.165 of 2024 so also Criminal Proceeding No.42 of 2024 and participate in both the proceedings. They are further directed not to ask for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, who shall do well to conclude both the proceedings in C.P. No.165 of 2024 & Criminal Proceeding No.42 of 2024 at the earliest.

¶42

19. It is made clear that since the Opposite Partyhusband is represented through a lawyer in Crl. Misc. Case No.298 of 2023, now pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (P), Uditnagar, Rourkela, he is not required to appear on each and every date of proceeding of the said case. However, if at all,

¶43

Page 9 of 10

¶44

he faces any difficulty on any date to appear in the said proceeding physically, he may move appropriate application in Crl. Misc. Case No.298 of 2023 before the learned Court below to allow him to appear through virtual mode. It is made further clear that, if such an application is moved, the learned S.D.J.M. (P), Uditnagar, Rourkela shall act in terms of the observations made in para-17 of this Judgment.

¶45

20. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this Judgment to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela, so also the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur for compliance and the learned S.D.J.M. (P), Uditnagar, Rourkela for information and necessary action.

¶46

21. Urgent certified copy of this Judgment be granted on proper application as per rules.

¶47

…….……………………

¶48

Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, the 10^th November, 2025/ Prasant

¶49

Signature Not Verified

¶50

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Page 10 of 10 Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 11-Nov-2025 18:57:29

Niranjan Badatya v. Swarnamala Badatya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Badatya v. Swarnamala Badatya

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

Lalu Bagh @ Lalu Kumar Bagh Vs Synod Chairman, Jeypore Evangelical Lutheran Church, Jeypore, Koraput

Rashmita Pradhan @ Sahu Vs Santosh Sahu

Akshaya Kumar Behera Vs Union of India

Swarnamala Badatya Vs Niranjan Badatya

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.,Jharsuguda Vs Bhabani Shankar Dixshit

State of Odisha Vs Balaram Barik