Orissa High Court
Chittaranjan Padhiary & vs Jasmine Das ....... Opposite Party on 7 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRPCRL No.98 of 2024
Chittaranjan Padhiary &
others ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
Jasmine Das ....... Opposite Party
TRPCRL No.99 of 2024
Chittaranjan Padhiary ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Jasmine Das ....... Opposite Party
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioners : Mr. Pranaya Swain
(In both the cases) Advocate
For Opposite Party : In Person
(In both the cases)
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 & Date of Judgment :07.07.2025
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. TRPCRL No.98 of 2024 has been filed by the Petitioner-
husband, his parents and relatives under section 447 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 for transfer of
D.V. Misc. Case No.103 of 2024 filed by the Opposite Party-wife
against the Petitioners under section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 from the Court of JMFC
(City), Balasore to the Court of JMFC-III, Cuttack.
2. Similarly, TRPCRL No.99 of 2024 has been filed by the
Petitioner-husband under section 447 of BNSS, 2023 for transfer
of Cr.P No.225 of 2024 filed by the Opposite Party-wife against the
Petitioner-husband under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 for
maintenance from the Court of Judge, Family Court, Balasore to
the Court of Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.
3. Petitioner No.1 in TRPCRL No.98 of 2024, is also the
sole Petitioner in TRPCRL No. 99 of 2024 and the sole Opposite
Party in both the cases being his wife, both the cases are taken up
together and disposed of vide this common Judgment.
4. In TRPCRL No.98 of 2024, the Petitioner No.1 is the
husband of the sole Opposite Party. The Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are
the father and mother of Petitioner No.1 respectively. Petitioner
Nos.4 & 5 are the sister and brother-in-law of Petitioner No.1
respectively. Petitioner Nos.6 and 7 are the maternal uncle and
aunty (mousa and mausi). Petitioner No.8 is the cousin brother of
Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No.9 is the godly sister of the father
of the Petitioner No.1. All the Petitioners have been entangled as
Opposite Parties in D.V. Misc. Case No.103 of 2024 filed by the
Opposite Party.
5. The TRPCRL No.98 of 2024 has been filed on the
grounds that Petitioner No.1-husband is a Govt. Medical Officer
(Doctor) and at present working at Kandhal PHC in the District of
Debagarh/Deogarh, which is more than 300 kms away from
Balasore. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are the father and mother of
Petitioner No.1, are suffering from various diseases and residing in
Cuttack. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5, who are the sister and brother-
in-law of Petitioner No.1, are serving in Shillong (Meghalaya) as
Central Govt. Employee and Doctor at Sum Hospital,
Bhubaneswar respectively. Petitioner Nos.6 and 7, who are the
maternal uncle and aunty of Petitioner No.1, are residing in
Cuttack and are no way concerned in the said Domestic Violence
Case and have been falsely implicated in the said case and it
would be painful as well as burdensome for them to appear before
the concerned Court at Balasore ,which is around 180 kms away
from Cuttack, at their own cost. The Petitioner No.8, who is the
cousin brother of Petitioner No.1, is at present residing in Jatani in
the district of Khurdha and has been falsely implicated as one of
the Opposite Parties in the said case and it would be difficult on
his part to appear before the concerned Court at Balasore at his
own cost, which is around 220 kms away from Jatani. Petitioner
No.9, who is the godly sister of the father of Petitioner No.1 and no
way connected with the said case, having no domestic relationship
with the Opposite Party, is residing in Cuttack. It will be painful as
well as burdensome for her to appear before the concerned Court
at Balasore, which is around 180 kms away from Cuttack.
6. That apart, it has been alleged that the mother and
maternal uncle of the Opposite Party-wife are having criminal
antecedents under section 302 of IPC. There is a life threat from
the family members of the Opposite Party-wife, if the Petitioners
appear before the concerned Court at Balasore.
7. Opposing to such prayer of transfer, the Opposite
Party- wife has filed a Counter Affidavit taking a stand therein that
she has filed the case at Balasore as the marriage was solemnized
at Balasore. Soon after the marriage, she was tortured by her in-
laws, which she tolerated with a hope that by passing of time, they
would lead a happy conjugal life. But unfortunately on 17.06.2024
her husband along with her in-laws tried to kill her. However,
hearing the calling bell of someone they left her. Thereafter, she
telephoned her father, who came to Cuttack and lodged an FIR at
Malgodown Police Station. Thereafter, with the help of Malgodown
Police, Cuttack she was rescued and left for Balasore along with
her father. After little bit recovery, she lodged an FIR at Balasore
on 23.06.2024. Now she is residing at her parental house in
Balasore.
8. A further stand has been taken in the Counter Affidavit
that the Petitioner No.1 is at present serving at Barkote. There is
no much difference, so far as distance from Barkote to Balasore
and Barkote to Cuttack, as has been alleged. Moreover, the
Petitioner No.1, is though working in CHC, Barkote, he is not
attending the hospital for three days in a week i.e. Saturday,
Sunday & Monday. Usually, he comes to Cuttack on every
Saturday and returns to his workplace on Tuesday. The said
ground of distance from Barkote to Balasore for transfer of
matrimonial case to Cuttack, which is his hometown, is
unsustainable as the Opposite Party, who is a distressed and
deserted lady, is residing in Balasore, which is around 170 kms
away from Cuttack.
9. It has further been stated in the Counter Affidavit that
domestic violence case has been filed in Balasore, as per the
provisions enshrined under section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 and in view of the settled position of law, convenience of wife
must be looked at while considering an application for transfer.
Hence, the prayer for transfer of proceeding from Balasore to
Cuttack is liable to be dismissed in limine.
10. That apart, to counter one of the grounds urged in the
transfer petition that the Petitioner No.1 is not getting permission
from the authority to attend the Court at Balasore, it has been
stated that if the case is transferred to Cuttack how come the
Petitioner No.1 would be permitted by the authority concerned to
attend the Court at Cuttack, if he is not granted leave to attend the
case at Balasore.
11. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer petition,
learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the prayer made
in the transfer petition should be allowed and the D.V. Misc. Case
No.103 of 2024, pending in the Court of JMFC (City), Balasore be
transferred to Court of JMFC-III, Cuttack.
12. Per contra, the Opposite Party-wife submitted that the
present transfer petition has been filed by the Petitioner-husband
and her in-laws intentionally to drag the adjudication of D.V. Misc.
Case No.103 of 2024 so also Cr.P No.225 of 2024 filed by her
before the Judge, Family Court, Balasore for interim maintenance.
She further submitted, apart from these two cases, she has also
lodged an FIR against the present Petitioners vide Balasore Sadar
P.S. Case No.268 of 2024 under Section 498-A/294/323/506/34
of I.P.C read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in
Balasore. She being a deserted and distressed lady, having no
income, is at present residing with her father, who is an ex-defence
personnel. She further submitted that the entire allegations made
in the transfer petition are false and fabricated to mislead this
Court and to harass her further.
13. The Opposite Party further submitted that since the
present Petitioners, who are the Opposite Parties in D.V. Misc.
Case No.103 of 2024, refused to accept the summons, all of them
were set ex-parte on 30.09.2024. Subsequently all of them
appeared on 04.11.2024 through their Advocates and filed
application to recall the ex-parte order. Thereafter, after taking
several adjournments, ultimately on 08.01.2025 the ex-parte order
was set aside and the objection filed by the present Petitioners,
who are the Opposite Parties before the Court below, was accepted.
When the matter stood posted to 05.03.2025 for hearing, they
obtained order from this court staying further proceeding in D.V.
Misc. Case No.103 of 2024 so also further proceeding in Cr.P
No.225 of 2024, which has been filed by her for interim
maintenance before the Court of Judge, Family Court, Balasore
under section 144 of the BNSS.
14. The Opposite Party submitted that because of the stay
order passed by this Court, the learned Court below could not
proceed further in both the said cases and no order could be
passed in her favour directing interim maintenance till date, for
which she is leading a miserable life, as she has to depend on her
father for her livelihood and litigation expenses. She further
submitted, it would be difficult on her part to attend the cases in
Cuttack, if prayers made in the present transfer petition so also in
TRPCRL No.99 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner-husband are allowed.
15. She further submitted, so far as alleged criminal
antecedents, in a suicide case, her mother was falsely implicated
as a co-accused in the Balasore Sadar P.S. Case No.260 of 2013
and she has been acquitted long back in the said case by the
concerned Court.
16. As is revealed from records in TRPCRL No.99 of 2024,
the Petitioner-husband has filed the said transfer application for
transfer of Cr.P No.225 of 2024 filed by the Opposite Party-Wife
under section 144 of BNSS for maintenance, from the Court of
Judge, Family Court, Balasore to the Court of Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack on the grounds that at present he is working at
Kandhal PHC in the District of Deogarh, which is around 300 kms
away from Balasore. Though the Opposite Party-wife has lodged an
FIR before the Balasore Sadar Police Station against nine persons
under section 498-A and other provisions of IPC, subsequently,
the charge sheet was submitted only against three persons i.e. the
Petitioner-husband and his parents. The mother and maternal
uncle of the Opposite Party-wife having criminal antecedents
under section 302 of IPC in connection with Balasore Sadar P.S.
Case No.260 of 2013, many times the Petitioner No.1 and his
family members were threatened by the family members of the
Opposite Party-wife. Hence, he is apprehending life risk, if he
appears before the concerned Court at Balasore.
17. Law is well settled that, while dealing with application
for transfer of matrimonial cases, the Court has to examine
various factors and most important factor is the convenience of
wife.
18. At this juncture, it would be apt to deal with the
Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC
1199 (N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha),
wherein it is held as follows:-
"8. It is not disputed that the appellant is the
resident of Chennai and that the appellant's
husband-respondent herein is the resident of Vellore
and he is employed. The appellant who is 21
years old does not have any source of income of
her own as she is not employed and is totally
dependent on her parents for her livelihood. In
order to attend the court proceedings of the case
filed by her husband at Vellore she has to travel
alone all the way from Chennai to Vellore as her
parents are not in a position to accompany her on
account of their old age. Secondly, the appellant
has also filed a petition, H.M.O.P. No.1741 of
2021, for restitution of conjugal rights and
another petition, M.C. Sr. No.672 of 2021, for
her maintenance before the Family Court at
Chennai.
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 behavioural 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
socioeconomic 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)
19. Admittedly, the Opposite Party-wife in both the transfer
petitions, after her desertion, is now residing in Balasore with her
parents, having no income and no interim order could be passed
by the competent Court directing to pay the interim maintenance
to the Opposite Party-Wife because of the stay order passed by this
Court at the instance of the Petitioners. Apart from D.V. Misc.
Case No.103 of 2024 and Cr.P No.225 of 2024, she has also lodged
an FIR against the present Petitioners in Balasore vide Balasore
Sadar P.S. Case No.268 of 2024 under Section 498-
A/294/323/506/34 of I.P.C read with Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow
the prayer made in the transfer application filed by the Petitioner-
husband, his parents and relatives for transfer of D.V. Misc. Case
No.103 of 2024 so also transfer application filed by the Petitioner-
husband for transfer of Cr.P No.225 of 2024 to the Court at
Cuttack.
20. However, in view of the reasons detailed in the forgoing
paragraphs, this Court is of the view that interest of justice will be
best served, if the parties, who are either stationed or serving at
different places, are permitted to appear through virtual mode
before the concerned Courts.
21. Accordingly, both the transfer petitions stand disposed
of requesting the Court of JMFC (City), Balasore so also Judge,
Family Court, Balasore to explore the facilities of Video
Conferencing available in the said Courts and permit the
Petitioners, who are the Opposite Parties in D.V. Misc.Case No.103
of 2024 and the present Opposite Party-wife, who is the Petitioner
in the said case and the Petitioner, who is the sole Opposite Party
in Cr.P No.225 of 2024 and the Opposite Party-wife, who is the
Petitioner in the said case, to appear through virtual mode.
22. Both the Courts are further requested to allow the
parties to appear 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, so also for
other purposes, if so required and ordered by the concerned Court,
the parties shall remain physically present before the Courts at
Balasore.
23. Both the Courts are requested to do the needful for
early disposal of D.V. Misc. Case No.103 of 2024 so also Cr.P
No.225 of 2024. Parties are directed not to ask for unnecessary
adjournments in both the cases and cooperate with the concerned
Courts for early disposal of both the cases.
24. Interim orders passed in both the transfer applications
stand vacated.
25. Office is directed to communicate copy of this order to
both Courts for doing the needful, as observed above.
26. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application as per rules.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, 7th July, 2025/ Banita
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Jul-2025 17:59:58
