Orissa High Court
Devjani Mishra vs Nigamananda Mishra ....... Opposite ... on 12 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.248 of 2025
Devjani Mishra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Nigamananda Mishra ....... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. J. Patnaik, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Senapati, Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 12.11.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. This transfer petition has been preferred by the
Petitioner-Wife for transfer of proceeding in C.P. Case
No.857 of 2024, pending in the Court of learned Judge,
Family Court, Bhubaneswar, to the Court of learned Judge,
Family Court, Baripada on the grounds detailed in the
transfer petition.
2. The Opposite Party-Husband, being noticed, has
filed a Counter Affidavit opposing to such prayer for
transfer. Apart from denying the grounds urged in the
transfer petition, it has been stated in the Counter that the
Petitioner is capable to bear the legal expenditure and
defend her case before the learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar.
3. Since pleadings are complete, on consent of the
learned Counsel for the Parties, the matter is taken up for
hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer
petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner-Wife is a deserted lady. After her desertion, she is
staying with her brother and old and ailing mother at
Baripada. Having no source of income, she is dependent on
her brother, who is also unable to bear her maintenance so
also litigation expenses. After her desertion, because of the
financial constraints, though she has preferred an
application under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 before the
learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada, which has been
registered as Cr.P. No.23 of 2025, being noticed, the
Opposite Party-Husband has appeared in the said case and
is contesting the said proceeding at Baripada. Till date no
order has been passed in the said proceeding, directing the
Opposite Party-husband to pay maintenance to her.
4.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further
submits, despite such financial constraints, with much
difficulty, she is paying her lawyer to conduct Cr.P. No. 23 of
2025. That apart, again she had to incur further legal
expenditure to defend her case in C.P. No.857 of 2024, now
pending before the learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar, at the instance of the Opposite Party-
Husband. It is becoming very difficult on her part to bear
legal expenditure in both the proceedings at Baripada so
also at Bhubaneswar. That apart, the distance from
Baripada to Bhubaneswar is around 300 KMs. It would be
difficult on her part to attend the day to day proceeding in
C.P. No.857 of 2024 at Bhubaneswar to defend her case
effectively in the said proceeding.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite
Party-Husband, drawing attention of this Court to the
averments made in para 12 of the Counter Affidavit submits,
as per the instruction received, the Petitioner-Wife, at
present, is doing a private job at Bhubaneswar and she is
very much capable to afford the legal expenditure to attend
the proceeding at Bhubaneswar and to defend her case
effectively in the said proceeding.
6. However, a query being made, learned Counsel for
the Opposite Party-Husband submits, he has no instruction
as to in which organization the Petitioner is allegedly serving
and where she is staying now at Bhubaneswar. That apart,
since she is allegedly staying with her brother, he would be
able to accompany her to attend the day to day proceeding
at Bhubaneswar in C.P. No.857 of 2024.
7. Even though, a stand has been taken in the
Counter Affidavit that the Petitioner is allegedly serving so
also staying somewhere in Bhubaneswar, but the Opposite
Party has failed to provide comprehensive and accurate
information to substantiate the stand taken in the Counter
Affidavit.
8. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept such a
plea of the Opposite Party-Husband taken in the Counter
Affidavit.
9. That apart, at the instance of the Petitioner-wife,
Cr.P. No.23 of 2025 is now pending before the learned
Judge, Family Court, Baripada.
10. Law is well settled that, while dealing with the
application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the
Court has to examine various factors and the most
important factor is convenience of wife.
11. 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 was 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)
12. In view of the reasons detailed in the transfer
petition so also submissions made by the learned Counsel
for the parties and the settled position of law, as detailed
above, the prayer made in the transfer petition is allowed.
13. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar
is directed to transmit the case record in C.P. No.857 of
2024 to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada
at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week from
the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.
14. On receiving the case record in C.P. Case No.857
of 2024 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar, the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada
shall re-register the said case, if so required, and proceed
further in accordance with law giving due opportunity to
both the parties.
15. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings so also for
convenience of the parties, both C.P. Case No.857 of 2024
and Cr.P. No.23 of 2025 be tried together.
16. The learned Judge, Family Court, 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, 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, Baripada.
17. After the case is transferred to the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada, to avoid delay and
notice, both the Parties are directed to make a query before
the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada themselves or
through their Counsels to ascertain the date and purpose of
posting of C.P. No.857 of 2024 and participate in the said
proceeding.
18. Both the Parties are further directed not to seek
for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the
learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada, who shall do well to
conclude the said proceeding at the earliest, preferably
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the
records from the Court of learned Family Court, Baripada.
19. With the said observation and direction, the
transfer petition stands allowed and disposed of.
20. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this
judgment to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar so also the learned Judge,Family Court,
Baripada for compliance.
21. Interim order dated 18.08.2025 passed in I.A.
No.263 of 2025 stands vacated.
22. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted
on proper application as per rules.
..............................
S.K. Mishra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, the 12th November, 2025/ Banita
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Reason: AUTHENTICATION
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 14-Nov-2025 17:03:50
