Orissa High Court
Manaly Pani vs Chiranjib Mishra ....... Opposite ... on 12 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.139 of 2025
Manaly Pani ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Chiranjib Mishra ....... Opposite Party
Advocates for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. A. Sahoo,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. D. Mohanty
Advocate
TRPCRL No.82 of 2025
Chiranjib Mishra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Manaly Pani ....... Opposite Party
TRP(C) No.163 of 2025
Chiranjib Mishra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Manaly Pani ....... Opposite Party
Advocates for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A. Sahoo,
Advocate
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 12.09.2025
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. TRP(C) No.139 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner- Wife for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.60 of 2025 filed by the Opposite Party-Husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce, now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal, to the Court of learned Family Court, Deogarh.
2. TRPCRL No.82 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner- Husband for transfer of proceeding in Cr.P.C No.37 of 2024 initiated by the Opposite Party-Wife under section 144 of BNSS for maintenance, now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh, for transfer of the said proceeding to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal.
3. Similarly TRP(C) No.163 of 2025 has also been filed by the Petitioner-Husband for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.12 of 2024 filed by the Opposite Party-Wife under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, now pending Page 2 of 9 in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal.
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.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Both the learned Counsels for the wife as well as husband, reiterating their respective grounds urged in the transfer petitions, advanced their arguments to justify the prayers made in their respective transfer petitions.
7. Admittedly, at the instance of the Wife namely, Manaly Pani, two proceedings, i.e., Cr.P.C. No.37 of 2024 filed under section 144 of BNSS for maintenance so also C.P. No.12 of 2024 filed by her under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights are pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh.
8. It is further admitted that, after getting notice in the said proceedings, the Petitioner-Husband has filed C.P. No.60 of 2025 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal.
Page 3 of 9
9. The Petitioner-Wife in TRP(C) No.139 of 2025 has prayed for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.60 of 2025 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh on the grounds that two of the proceedings, as detailed above, are at present pending before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh, which were preferred prior to C.P. No.60 of 2025 filed by the Opposite Party- Husband for decree of divorce before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal.
10. That apart, further grounds have been urged in TRP(C) No.139 of 2025 that the Petitioner-wife is a deserted lady and having no male member in her family to accompany her on each and every date of posting to attend the proceeding at Dhenkanal. After her desertion she is staying with her parents at Deogarh and is dependent on the income of her father for her livelihood, who is an old and ailing person and is suffering from various diseases. The distance from Deogarh to Dhenkanal would be around 190 K.Ms. and there is no direct communication from Dhenkanal to Deogarh to travel after the Court hours. It is further stated that, if the Wife is asked to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal, she will be subjected to mental and physical Page 4 of 9 torture and harassment and there is also a danger to her life, as the Opposite Party-Husband is the local person of Dhenkanal.
11. So far as TRPCRL No.82 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.163 of 2025, preferred by the Petitioner-Husband for transfer of proceedings in Cr.P.C No.37 of 2024 and C.P. No.12 of 2024 respectively, from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal, the grounds urged in both the transfer petitions are identical.
12. Such prayers have been made by the Petitioner- Husband on the grounds that the Petitioner is to take care of his old father, who is staying with him at Dhenkanal. C.P. No.60 of 2025 filed by him under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce is now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal. Apart from that the distance from Dhenkanal to Deogarh would be around 186 K.Ms. and there is a life threat to the Petitioner-Husband from the family members of the Opposite Party-Wife, if he is asked to appear the proceeding at Deogarh .
13. 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 Page 5 of 9 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.
14. In (N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha), reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
"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.
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."
(Emphasis Supplied)
15. Admittedly, the husband has filed C.P. No.60 of 2025 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of divorce, which is now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court at Dhenkanal. To the contrary, the wife has filed Page 6 of 9 C.P. No.12 of 2024 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights so also Cr.P.C No.37 of 2024 under section 144 of BNSS for maintenance before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court at Deogarh. The husband has appeared and is contesting those cases before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court at Deogarh. 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, whether the prayer for a decree of divorce made by the husband or the prayer made by the wife for restitution of conjugal life is to be allowed, involves common question of fact and law and are interdependent. Thus, it is desirable that all 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.
16. After taking note of the pleadings on record of each transfer petitions, 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.139 of 2025 preferred by the Petitioner- Wife deserves to be allowed whereas; the prayers made by the Petitioner-Husband in TRPCRL No.82 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.163 Page 7 of 9 of 2025 deserve to be rejected. Accordingly, TRP(C) No.139 of 2025 stands disposed of as allowed whereas; TRPCRL No.82 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.163 of 2025 stand dismissed with the following directions and observations.
17. The learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal is directed to transmit the case record in C.P. No.60 of 2025 to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.
18. On receiving the case records in C.P. No.60 of 2025, the learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh shall re-register the said case, if so required, tag the case records to C.P. No.12 of 2024 and Cr.P.C. No.37 of 2024 and proceed further in accordance with law, giving due opportunity to both the parties and try to conclude all the aforesaid proceedings at the earliest.
19. The Judge, Family Court, Deogarh is requested to explore the facilities of Video Conferencing available in the said Court and permit the parties to appear before him 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 Page 8 of 9 presence may be required by the Court and if it is so ordered, the parties shall remain physically present before the Judge, Family Court, Deogarh.
20. To avoid delay and notice, both the parties are directed to make a query as to the next date and purpose of posting of C.P. No.60 of 2025 and other cases, which will be tagged to the said C.P., and attend the proceedings before the learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh. Both the parties are further directed not to ask for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh, who shall do well to conclude the said proceedings at the earliest.
21. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this judgment to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal so also the Judge, Family Court, Deogarh for compliance.
22. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on proper application as per rules.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, 12th September, 2025/ Banita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 15-Sep-2025 18:33:13 Page 9 of 9