Orissa High Court
Jitendra Kumar Das vs Pallabi Biswal .... Opposite Party on 14 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.40 of 2025
Jitendra Kumar Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
Pallabi Biswal .... Opposite Party
TRPCRL No.15 of 2025
Jitendra Kumar Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
Pallabi Biswal & others .... Opposite Parties
TRPCRL No.16 of 2025
Jitendra Kumar Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
Pallabi Biswal .... Opposite Party
TRP(C) No.11 of 2025
Pallabi Biswal .... Petitioner
-versus-
Jitendra Kumar Das .... Opposite Party
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate
(In TRP(C) No.40 of 2025,
TRPCRL Nos.15 & 16 of 2025)
For Petitioner : B.K. Mishra, Advocate
(In TRP(C) No.11 of 2025)
Page 1 of 11
For Opposite Party : Mr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate
(In TRP(C) No.40 of 2025,
TRPCRL Nos.15 & 16 of 2025)
For Opposite Party : Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate
(In TRP(C) No.11 of 2025)
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 14.08.2025
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-
wife for transfer of C.P. No.207 of 2024, which has been filed by
the Opposite Party-husband before the learned Judge, Family
Court Baripada under Section 13(i)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 for divorce, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Balasore, whereas, TRPCRL No.15 of 2025 has been filed by the
Petitioner-husband for transfer of D.V. Misc. Case No.214 of 2024,
which has been filed by the Opposite Party-wife under Section 12
of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M.,
Balasore, to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Baripada. TRPCRL
No.16 of 2025 has also been filed by the Petitioner-husband for
transfer of proceeding in Cr.P. No.382 of 2024, which has been
filed by the Opposite Party-wife under section 144 of B.N.S.S.,
2023 for maintenance before the Court of learned Judge, Family
Court, Balasore, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Baripada. Similarly, TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 has been filed by the
Petitioner-husband for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.761 of
2024 initiated by the Opposite Party-wife under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights before the
Judge, Family Court, Balasore, to the Court of learned Judge,
Family Court, Baripada.
2. Since the issue involved in all the transfer petitions are
pertaining to transfer of various matrimonial proceedings initiated
either at the instance of the wife or husband, on consent of learned
Counsel for the parties, all the transfer petitions are taken up for
hearing and disposal together at the stage of admission.
3. So far as transfer petitions i.e. TRPCRL No.15 of 2025,
TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 are concerned,
as it seems from the pleadings made in the said transfer petitions,
the grounds urged in all the said applications are same.
4. Mr. Jena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-husband,
reiterating the grounds urged in the aforesaid transfer petitions
submits, the distance from Balasore to Baripada is only 50 KMs.,
having well communication facility. The Opposite Party-wife is
regularly attending her office at Baripada, for which, she will never
feel any inconvenience, if the proceedings initiated by her are
transferred from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Balasore to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada.
Mr. Jena further submits, the Opposite Party-wife is contesting
one of the cases, i.e. C.P. No.207 of 2024, at Baripada.
5. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the
Opposite Party-wife in the aforesaid three transfer petitions
submits, his client is no more serving in Baripada. She has left the
said job since long, for which, being directed by this Court, an
Affidavit has been filed in TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 enclosing thereto
documentary evidence regarding her present place of working.
6. Drawing attention of this Court to the documents
appended to the said Affidavit, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the
Opposite Party-wife submits, his client is at present working as a
Social Worker in an Old Age home at Balasore and getting an
honorarium of Rs.6,000/- per month with effect from 01.01.2025
to maintain her livelihood after her desertion. Drawing attention
towards the averments made in the said Affidavit, Mr. Mishra
further submits, the Opposite Party-wife was staying with her
husband in the matrimonial house at Baripada. Then she was
working as Manager in a Specialized Adoption Agency under the
NGO, Rural Development Action Cell at Palabania, Baripada in the
district of Mayurbhanj. However, due to continuous physical and
mental torture by her husband so also other family members, the
dispute arose between the parties, for which she was forced to
leave her matrimonial house at Baripada and since then, she is
residing under the care of her grandfather namely, Ananta Kumar
Biswal at Sahadevkhunta in Balasore.
7. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife
in the aforesaid three transfer petitions submits, his client has
filed TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.207
of 2024 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada
to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, which is
under consideration before this Court. Hence, it is no more open
for the Petitioner-husband to take such a ground in the aforesaid
transfer petitions to transfer the said proceedings to Baripada
under the plea that C.P. No.207 of 2024 at her instance is pending
in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada.
8. Apart from that, drawing attention of this Court to the
averments made in paragraph Nos.12 & 13 of TRP(C) No.11 of
2025, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife submits, since his
client is residing at Balasore, which is around 60 Kms. away from
Baripada and she being a hopeless and hapless lady, it will be very
difficult on her part to come to Baripada to attend the Court
proceeding in all the three cases, wherein she is the Petitioner and
those cases have been rightly instituted by her at Balasore, as
she is residing at Balasore. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife
in TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 further submits, C.P. No.761 of 2024 has
been initiated by his client under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage
Act for restitution of conjugal rights, C.P. No.383 of 2025 has been
filed under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 for maintenance and D.V.
Misc. Case No.214 of 2024 is now pending before the learned
S.D.J.M., Balasore initiated under Section 12 of P.W.D.V. Act,
2005. Hence, the convenience of the Petitioner-wife is the
paramount consideration for transfer of matrimonial proceedings
as per the settled position of law, so also for convenience of other
witnesses, who are located in and around Balasore. Apart from
that, the proceeding in C.P. No.207 of 2024, initiated by the
husband for divorce, pending in the Court of learned Judge,
Family Court, Baripada deserves to be transferred from Baripada
to Balasore for analogous hearing along with C.P. No.761 of 2024,
initiated by the Petitioner-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.
9. Mr. Mishra further submits, since the Opposite Party-
husband and most of the witnesses in C.P. No.207 of 2024 are
living in and around Baripada, the Petitioner reasonably
apprehends that they may threat and harass her, if she attends
the proceeding in the said case at Baripada. That apart, the father
of the Petitioner is also suffering from various old age ailments and
he will not be in a position to accompany the Petitioner to attend
the Court proceeding at Baripada on each and every date of
posting, as there is no other male member in her family to support
her to attend the proceeding at Baripada. That apart, the Opposite
Party-husband is an influential person of the locality for which,
the Petitioner is also under apprehension of danger to her life in
attending the Court proceeding at Baripada.
10. Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife in
TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 further submits, law is well settled that in
matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is the
paramount consideration. The Petitioner, being a destitute lady, it
would be very inconvenient on her part to attend the Court
proceeding at Baripada. He further submits, his client has filed
C.P. No.761 of 2024 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
maintenance, whereas the Opposite Party-husband filed C.P.
No.207 of 2024 under Section 13(i)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act for
divorce. As per the settled position of law, both the said
proceedings need to be heard together to avoid multiplicity of the
proceedings and conflicting of judgments.
11. In view of the allegations made by the Petitioner-
husband in TRPCRL No.15 of 2025, TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 and
TRP(C) No.40 of 2025, this Court passed an order in TRP(C) No.40
of 2025 on 09.07.2025 with regard to her present address so also
occupation with documentary proof, if any. On being so directed,
the Opposite Party-wife in TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 has also filed an
Affidavit as has been detailed above with documentary evidence to
substantiate the pleadings made in the Affidavit.
12. Law is well settled that, while dealing with a transfer
application regarding transfer of matrimonial proceedings,
convenience of the wife must be looked at and proceedings
involving common question of fact and law to be tried together. 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)
13 Hence, taking into consideration the averments made
in the aforesaid transfer petitions, submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the parties and the settled position of law, this
Court is inclined to allow the prayer made by the Petitioner-wife in
TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 and reject the prayers made by the
Petitioner-husband in TRPCRL No.15 of 2025, TRPCRL No.16 of
2025 and TRP(C) No.40 of 2025. At this stage, Mr. Jena, learned
Counsel for the Petitioner-husband in TRPCRL No.15 of 2025,
TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.40 of 2025, prays for
permitting his client to appear through virtual mode in all the
aforesaid cases, if so required.
14 Accordingly, the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada
is directed to transmit the case record in C.P No.207 of 2024 to the
Court of Judge, Family Court, Balasore 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 record in C.P. No.207 of 2024
from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada, the
learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore shall re-register the said
case, if so required, and proceed further in accordance with law
giving due opportunity to both the parties.
16. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, C.P. No.207 of
2024 be tagged to C.P. No.761 of 2024. Since Cr.P. No.382 of
2024, at the instance of the Petitioner-wife, is also pending before
the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, for
convenience of parties, C.P. No.207 of 2024 and C.P. No.761 of
2024 and Cr.P. No.382 of 2024 be tried together by posting the
said cases to same date.
17. The learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore 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
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, Balasore.
18. To avoid delay and notice, both the parties are directed
to make a query themselves or through their counsel regarding the
date and purpose of posting of C.P. No.207 of 2024 and C.P.
No.761 of 2024 and Cr.P. No.382 of 2024 and attend the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. Both the parties are
further directed not to ask for unnecessary adjournments and
cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, who
shall do well to conclude the said proceedings at the earliest.
19. With the said observation and direction, all the transfer
petitions stand disposed of.
20. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to
the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada so also to the
learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore for compliance.
21. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application as per rules.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, 14th August, 2025/ Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 15-Aug-2025 14:19:01
