Orissa High Court
Laxmi Narayan Samantray vs Snigdharani Mangaraj on 16 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
L.P.A. No.1 of 2021
Laxmi Narayan Samantray .... Appellant
Mr. S. S. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
Snigdharani Mangaraj .... Respondent
None
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
16.08.2021
Order No.
02. 1. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 5th July, 2021
passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing TRP (C) No.386 of
2019 filed by the present Appellant seeking the transfer of
Matrimonial Case No.20 of 2019 filed by the Respondent-wife
against the Appellant-husband in the Court of learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Chhatraput, Ganjam under Section 13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 ('HM Act') to the file of the Judge, Family
Court, Bhubaneswar.
2. At the outset, it requires to be noted that the Registry has placed a
note before this Court pointing out that the present appeal may not be
maintainable before this Court as the order is of learned Single Judge
rejecting a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
3. While learned counsel for the Appellant insists on the Appeal is
maintainable in terms of a judgment of the Supreme Court (the
citation given in the appeal appears to be erroneous) the Court is not
satisfied that even on merits the order of the learned Single Judge
calls for interference.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellants states that while the Appellant
has filed cases against the Respondent in the Court of the Judge,
Family Court, Bhubaneswar, the Respondent has filed the
aforementioned Matrimonial Case No.20 of 2019 in the Court of the
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chhatraput, Ganjam only as a
counterblast. It is submitted that on the date of the impugned order
i.e. 5th July 2021, counsel for the present Appellant had changed and
the new counsel had sought time to advance arguments. It is stated
that this request was declined by the learned Single Judge and,
therefore, the Appellant was precluded from presenting his case in a
proper manner.
5. Since the Court has nevertheless heard the submissions at length of
the learned counsel for the Appellant on the merits of the request for
transfer of the case, it is not felt necessary to examine whether the
Appellant ought to be relegated to the learned Single Judge for a
fresh hearing. The fact remains that the proceedings initiated by the
Appellant in the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar is
under Section 9 of the HM Act and as rightly noted by learned Single
Judge that cannot be a ground for transfer of the petition filed by the
Respondent-wife under Section 13 of the HM Act in the Court of
learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chhatraput, Ganjam. In any
event, given the distance between the two places, the Appellant is not
going to be subjected to prejudice if he has to travel to the Court at
Chhatraput for defending himself in the above case.
6. In that view of the matter, no grounds are made out for interference
with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
M. Panda
