Orissa High Court
Manaly Pani vs Chiranjib Mishra ....... Opposite ... on 12 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.139 of 2025
Manaly Pani ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Chiranjib Mishra ....... Opposite Party
Advocates for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. A. Sahoo,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. D. Mohanty
Advocate
TRPCRL No.82 of 2025
Chiranjib Mishra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Manaly Pani ....... Opposite Party
TRP(C) No.163 of 2025
Chiranjib Mishra ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Manaly Pani ....... Opposite Party
Advocates for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A. Sahoo,
Advocate
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 12.09.2025
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. TRP(C) No.139 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-
Wife for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.60 of 2025 filed by the
Opposite Party-Husband under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 for decree of divorce, now pending in the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal, to the Court of learned
Family Court, Deogarh.
2. TRPCRL No.82 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-
Husband for transfer of proceeding in Cr.P.C No.37 of 2024
initiated by the Opposite Party-Wife under section 144 of BNSS for
maintenance, now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family
Court, Deogarh, for transfer of the said proceeding to the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal.
3. Similarly TRP(C) No.163 of 2025 has also been filed by
the Petitioner-Husband for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.12 of
2024 filed by the Opposite Party-Wife under section 9 of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, now pending
in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh, to the Court
of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal.
4. In all the three transfer petitions, which are on board,
the parties being same and the issues pertaining to these transfer
petitions, being common, are taken up together for hearing and
final disposal vide this common judgment.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
6. Both the learned Counsels for the wife as well as
husband, reiterating their respective grounds urged in the transfer
petitions, advanced their arguments to justify the prayers made in
their respective transfer petitions.
7. Admittedly, at the instance of the Wife namely, Manaly
Pani, two proceedings, i.e., Cr.P.C. No.37 of 2024 filed under
section 144 of BNSS for maintenance so also C.P. No.12 of 2024
filed by her under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
Restitution of Conjugal Rights are pending in the Court of learned
Judge, Family Court, Deogarh.
8. It is further admitted that, after getting notice in the
said proceedings, the Petitioner-Husband has filed C.P. No.60 of
2025 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree
of divorce before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Dhenkanal.
9. The Petitioner-Wife in TRP(C) No.139 of 2025 has
prayed for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.60 of 2025 from the
Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal to the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh on the grounds that two of
the proceedings, as detailed above, are at present pending before
the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh, which were
preferred prior to C.P. No.60 of 2025 filed by the Opposite Party-
Husband for decree of divorce before the Court of learned Judge,
Family Court, Dhenkanal.
10. That apart, further grounds have been urged in TRP(C)
No.139 of 2025 that the Petitioner-wife is a deserted lady and
having no male member in her family to accompany her on each
and every date of posting to attend the proceeding at Dhenkanal.
After her desertion she is staying with her parents at Deogarh and
is dependent on the income of her father for her livelihood, who is
an old and ailing person and is suffering from various diseases.
The distance from Deogarh to Dhenkanal would be around 190
K.Ms. and there is no direct communication from Dhenkanal to
Deogarh to travel after the Court hours. It is further stated that, if
the Wife is asked to appear before the learned Judge, Family
Court, Dhenkanal, she will be subjected to mental and physical
torture and harassment and there is also a danger to her life, as
the Opposite Party-Husband is the local person of Dhenkanal.
11. So far as TRPCRL No.82 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.163 of
2025, preferred by the Petitioner-Husband for transfer of
proceedings in Cr.P.C No.37 of 2024 and C.P. No.12 of 2024
respectively, from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Deogarh to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal,
the grounds urged in both the transfer petitions are identical.
12. Such prayers have been made by the Petitioner-
Husband on the grounds that the Petitioner is to take care of his
old father, who is staying with him at Dhenkanal. C.P. No.60 of
2025 filed by him under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 for decree of divorce is now pending in the Court of learned
Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal. Apart from that the distance
from Dhenkanal to Deogarh would be around 186 K.Ms. and there
is a life threat to the Petitioner-Husband from the family members
of the Opposite Party-Wife, if he is asked to appear the proceeding
at Deogarh .
13. Law is well settled that, while considering the transfer
petitions for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the convenience
of the wife must be looked at. That apart, law is also well settled
that where two or more proceedings are pending before different
Courts, which raise common question of fact and law, and when
the decisions in those cases are interdependent , the proceedings
are to be tried together to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same
issues and conflict of decisions.
14. 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)
15. Admittedly, the husband has filed C.P. No.60 of 2025
under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for decree of
divorce, which is now pending in the Court of learned Judge,
Family Court at Dhenkanal. To the contrary, the wife has filed
C.P. No.12 of 2024 under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
for restitution of conjugal rights so also Cr.P.C No.37 of 2024
under section 144 of BNSS for maintenance before the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court at Deogarh. The husband has
appeared and is contesting those cases before the Court of learned
Judge, Family Court at Deogarh. That apart, the issue regarding
maintenance to be paid to the wife, during pendency of the
aforesaid proceedings, also has a bearing with the said
matrimonial proceedings. Hence, this Court is of the view that,
whether the prayer for a decree of divorce made by the husband or
the prayer made by the wife for restitution of conjugal life is to be
allowed, involves common question of fact and law and are
interdependent. Thus, it is desirable that all the aforesaid cases
should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid
multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflicting decisions.
16. After taking note of the pleadings on record of each
transfer petitions, submissions made by the learned Counsel for
the parties, the settled position of law and the views taken by this
Court, as detailed above, this Court is of further view that the
prayer made in TRP(C) No.139 of 2025 preferred by the Petitioner-
Wife deserves to be allowed whereas; the prayers made by the
Petitioner-Husband in TRPCRL No.82 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.163
of 2025 deserve to be rejected. Accordingly, TRP(C) No.139 of 2025
stands disposed of as allowed whereas; TRPCRL No.82 of 2025 and
TRP(C) No.163 of 2025 stand dismissed with the following
directions and observations.
17. The learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal is
directed to transmit the case record in C.P. No.60 of 2025 to the
Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh at the earliest,
preferably within a period of one week from the date of production
of certified copy of this judgment.
18. On receiving the case records in C.P. No.60 of 2025,
the learned Judge, Family Court, Deogarh shall re-register the said
case, if so required, tag the case records to C.P. No.12 of 2024
and Cr.P.C. No.37 of 2024 and proceed further in accordance with
law, giving due opportunity to both the parties and try to conclude
all the aforesaid proceedings at the earliest.
19. The Judge, Family Court, Deogarh 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 Judge, Family
Court, Deogarh.
20. To avoid delay and notice, both the parties are directed
to make a query as to the next date and purpose of posting of C.P.
No.60 of 2025 and other cases, which will be tagged to the said
C.P., and attend the proceedings before the learned Judge, Family
Court, Deogarh. Both the parties are further directed not to ask for
unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned Judge,
Family Court, Deogarh, who shall do well to conclude the said
proceedings at the earliest.
21. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this
judgment to the Court of Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal so also
the Judge, Family Court, Deogarh for compliance.
22. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on
proper application as per rules.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, 12th September, 2025/ Banita
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 15-Sep-2025 18:33:13
