Delhi High Court
Devi Pr. Mohanty vs Sasmita Lenka on 22 August, 2013
Author: Raghubir Dash
TRPC No.42 of 2013
TRPC Nos.42 and 50 of 2013
8. 22.08.2013 Each of the spouses having filed one petition for transfer
of matrimonial case filed by the other spouse, both the transfer
petitions are heard analogously and being disposed of by this common
order.
TRPC No.42 of 2013 is filed by the wife seeking
transfer of C.P. No.822 of 2011, a petition for divorce, from the Judge,
Family Court, Bhubaneswar to the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.
TRPC No.50 of 2013 is filed by the husband seeking
transfer of C.P. No.514 of 2011, a petition for restitution of conjugal
right, from the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the Judge, Family
Court, Bhubaneswar.
The wife's petition for transfer is on the ground that
both the cases be heard analogously for disposal by a common order in
order to avoid contradictory findings on common issues involved in
both the cases. Further allegation is that the husband and his associates
have been creating hostile atmosphere in the court premises at
Bhubaneswar for which it is not possible on the part of the petitioner to
properly conduct her case in the Family Court at Bhubaneswar.
The husband, on the other hand, seeks for transfer on the
ground that since both the parties are staying at Bhubaneswar and
some other criminal proceedings between the parties are pending
before different forums within Bhubaneswar, it would be more
convenient for both parties to pursue and defend their cases in a better
manner at Bhubaneswar.
Both the husband and the wife are Government
Servants. The husband is in Orissa Administrative Service (I) and the
wife is in Orissa Finance Service (I). The materials on record disclose
2
that the husband is now posted as B.D.O of Chandabali in the district
of Bhadrak but the place of posting of the wife is not forthcoming.
However, it is not in dispute that she is staying at Bhubaneswar.
There cannot be two opinions on the proposition that
both the matrimonial proceedings should be tried analogously in one
Family Court. Therefore, either of the proceedings has to be
transferred from one Family Court to the other. Since the wife has
mentioned her Bhubaneswar address as her present address and it is the
case of the husband that both of them are staying at Bhubaneswar, it
would be convenient on the part of both spouses if the cases are tried
in the Family Court at Bhubaneswar. The wife expresses her
inconvenience in defending herself in the court at Bhubaneswar on the
ground that the husband has been creating hostile atmosphere within
the court premises. If that is true then the possibility of repetition of
similar activities within Cuttack court-premises cannot be ruled out.
It is also not in dispute that at the instance of the wife
some other litigations have cropped up and all the proceedings are
pending in different forums situate in Bhubaneswar.
Considering all these facts and circumstances, the prayer
made by the husband is allowed and the prayer made by the wife is
rejected. C.P. No.514 of 2011 pending before the Judge, Family Court,
Cuttack is transferred to the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. On
receipt of a certified copy of this order the learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack shall immediately transmit the case record to the
learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.
Accordingly, both the transfer petitions are disposed of.
..........................
Raghubir Dash, J.
Deb
asis
