[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bishnu Prasad Mohanty vs Basanta Kumar Mohanty ....... Opposite ... on 18 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.331 of 2025
Bishnu Prasad Mohanty ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Basanta Kumar Mohanty ....... Opposite Party
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Dash,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. M.K. Pati,
Advocate
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of hearing and Judgment: 18.12.2025
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. This Transfer Petition has been preferred by the
Petitioner for transfer of proceeding in GMC Petition No.38 of
2025, now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Mayurbhanj, Baripada, to the Court of learned Judge, Family
Court, Nayagarh on the grounds detailed in the transfer petition.
2. Being noticed, the Opposite Party has appeared in this
case and has filed his objection/response affidavit opposing to
such prayer for transfer.
3. Since pleadings are complete, on consent of the learned
counsel for the parties, the transfer petition is taken up for hearing
and disposal at the stage of admission.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer petition,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, prior to filing of GMC
Petition No.38 of 2025 by the Opposite Party, who is the father in-
law of the Petitioner, his brother in-law had preferred GMC Petition
No.21 of 2024 before the same Court, which stood dismissed on
contest vide judgment dated 14.07.2025. After dismissal of the
said application preferred by the Petitioner's brother in-law under
Section 10, read with Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act,
1980, now the Petitioner's father in-law (the Opposite-Party) has
preferred GMC Petition No.38 of 2025, with the selfsame prayer,
suppressing the said fact regarding dismissal of earlier petition at
the instance of the Petitioner's brother in-law. That apart, the
distance from Baripada to Nayagarh would be around 340 KMs. It
would be difficult on his part to travel such a long distance to
defend the case at Baripada.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party
submits, his client is around 64 years. It would be difficult on his
part to attend the day-to-day proceeding at Nayagarh by traveling
such a long distance, if the proceeding in GMC Petition No.38 of
2025 is transferred to the Court at Nayagarh. That apart, in the
earlier proceeding, the Petitioner could be able to appear before the
Court at Baripada to defend his case, even though he is staying in
Pune, in the State of Maharashtra. No step was taken then by the
Petitioner for transfer of earlier proceeding, i.e., GMC Petition
No.21 of 2024, on such plea, as has been taken in the present
transfer petition. Since the Petitioner is stationed at Pune, it will
no way be helpful for him, even if his prayer made in the transfer
petition is allowed.
7. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party further
submits, C.T. Case No.668 of 2024, is now pending in the Court of
learned S.D.J.M, Baripada against the Petitioner under Section
498-A, 304B, 302, 306/34 IPC, read with Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act and he is contesting the said case at Baripada.
That apart, the minor child is pursuing her study in a reputed
private school namely, KID's Masti Café at Baripada. Since the
Petitioner is represented through a lawyer in GMC Case No.38 of
2025, if he has any difficulty to appear physically before the
learned Court at Baripada in GMC Case No.38 of 2025 on any
date, he can very well approach the learned Court below to permit
him to appear through virtual mode.
8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties,
taking note of the pleadings on record and the settled position of
law, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer made in the
transfer petition.
9. However, as admittedly the Petitioner is at present
stationed at Pune, he is permitted to appear through virtual mode
before the learned Judge, Family Court, Mayurbhanj, at Baripada
in GMC Petition No.38 of 2025, if he faces any difficulty on any
date to appear physically in the said proceeding.
10. Accordingly, the learned Judge, Family Court,
Mayurbhanj, Baripada 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, it is made clear that, on the dates of
effective hearing i.e. for examination and cross-examination of
witnesses and other purposes, for which the parties presence may
be required by the learned Court below and if it is so ordered, the
parties shall remain physically present before the learned Judge,
Family Court, Mayurbhanj, at Baripada.
11. The parties are directed not to seek for unnecessary
adjournments and cooperate with the learned Judge, Family
Court, Mayurbhanj, at Baripada, who shall do well to conclude the
proceeding in GMC Petition No.38 of 2025 at the earliest,
preferably within a period of six months from the date of
production of the certified copy of this judgment.
12. With the said observation and direction, the transfer
petition stands disposed of.
13. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this
judgment to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Mayurbhanj, Baripada for information and necessary action.
14. Urgent certified copy be granted on proper application
as per rules.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, the 18th December, 2025/ Kanhu
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 19-Dec-2025 16:01:18
