Orissa High Court
Debaraj Behera vs Santilata Behera @ Behari & on 16 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRPCRL No.119 of 2024
Debaraj Behera ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Santilata Behera @ Behari &
another ....... Opposite Parties
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Mohanty,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. H.V.B.R.K. Dora,
Advocate
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 16.09.2025
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. This transfer petition has been filed by the Petitioner-
husband for transfer of proceeding in Cr.P. No.137 of 2024 from
the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court No.2, Bhubaneswar on the grounds
detailed in the transfer petition.
2. Being noticed, the Opposite Party No.1-wife, who
represents her minor son (Opposite Party No.2) has filed the
Counter Affidavit opposing to such prayer for transfer.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-husband, who
appears through Virtual Court, Dhenkanal submits, the only
ground for seeking transfer of Cr.P. No.137 of 2024 to the Court of
Judge, Family Court No.II, Bhubaneswar is the pendency of C.P.
No.481 of 2021 in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court No.II,
Bhubaneswar . The said C.P. has been preferred by the Petitioner-
husband under Section 13(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
dissolution of marriage between the parties. The present Opposite
Party-wife, being noticed, has appeared in the said case.
5. Per contra, Mr. Dora, learned Counsel for the Opposite
Party-wife submits, she being a deserted lady having no income, is
staying at her parental house at Village Chanduli, PO: Sarichuan,
PS: Sadar, Dist: Cuttack, which is around 18 KMs. away from
Cuttack. During the lifetime of her father, she could manage to
attend the proceeding in C.P. No.481 of 2021 at Bhubaneswar. Her
father has died since March, 2024. She also made an attempt
before this Court by filing TRP(C) No.145 of 2024 to transfer the
proceeding in C.P. No.481 of 2021 to the Court of learned Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack. But unfortunately her transfer petition
stood rejected by the coordinate Bench giving her liberty to appear
through virtual mode so also to take assistance of the Legal
Services Authority, in case she has no means to engage a lawyer.
5.1. Mr. Dora submits, the Opposite Party-wife, being an
illiterate lady, is unable to avail the facility of video conferencing,
in terms of the liberty granted by the coordinate Bench vide order
dated 21.06.2024 passed in TRP(C) No.145 of 2024. That apart,
after the death of her father, it has become difficult on her part to
attend the proceeding in C.P. No.481 of 2021 at Bhubaneswar, as
there is no male member in the family to accompany her. As per
the instruction received, the said case is at conciliation stage.
However, due to her stringent financial condition, she is even
unable to attend the conciliation proceeding in C.P. No.481 of
2021.
5.2. Mr. Dora further submits, if the prayer made in the
transfer petition is allowed on the ground of pendency of C.P.
No.481 of 2021 before the Court of learned, Judge, Family Court
No.II, Bhubaneswar, it would be very difficult on the part of the
Opposite Party-wife to bear the legal expenses of the lawyers so
also travelling expenses to attend the proceeding at Bhubaneswar.
5.3. He further submits, being aggrieved by the order dated
21.06.2024 passed in TRP(C) No.145 of 2024, the Petitioner, being
a destitute lady having no income, applied for legal aid before the
Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee, shortly, "SCLSC", to
file SLP before the Supreme Court of India. The SCLSC has
received the required documents sent by her and the same got
registered as ANR No.4074 of 2024 vide Process Id 11099-2024
and 11158-2024.
5.4. Mr. Dora submits, the Petitioner-husband agreed to
take her back so also her son to matrimonial house in the divorce
proceeding, for which the matter was posted before the National
Lok Adalat on 11.02.2023 in terms of notice dated 01.02.2023.
But the Petitioner-husband did not attend the National Lok Adalat
on the pretext that he is ill and not able to attend the proceeding,
for which no conciliation could be held to resolve the said issue
amiably.
6. After taking note of the pleadings on record and
submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, the
Opposite Party being a distressed lady, having lost her father in
the meantime, on whom she was dependent for her livelihood so
also litigation expenses, this Court is of the prima facie view that
the prayer made in the transfer petition solely on the ground of
pendency of C.P. No.481 of 2021 before the Court of learned,
Judge, Family Court No.II, Bhubaneswar is unsustainable.
7. Law is well settled that, while dealing with applications
for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the wife
must be looked at. In N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana
Karthik Sha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the
Supreme Court held 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 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 socio-economic paradigm in the
Indian society, generally, it is the wife's
convenience which must be looked at while
considering transfer."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. That apart, it is alleged by the learned Counsel for the
Opposite Party-wife that the Petitioner husband is filing petitions
for adjournment repeatedly in Cr.P. No.137 of 2024 on the ground
of pendency of the present transfer petition, for which the learned
Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is unable to pass any order/interim
order of maintenance in favour of the Petitioner, thereby causing
further financial hardship to her to maintain her so also to meet
the litigation expenses.
9. Taking note of the grounds regarding pendency of C.P.
No.481 of 2021 at Bhubaneswar and rejection of the application of
the Opposite Party-wife in TRP(C) No.145 of 2024 so also the
submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-
wife, as detailed above, including the stand that she has
approached the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority seeking
legal assistance to challenge the said order passed in TRP(C)
No.145 of 2024 before the Supreme Court, this Court is not
inclined to allow the prayer made in the transfer petition at this
juncture.
10. Accordingly, the transfer petition stands dismissed.
11. However, for convenience of the Petitioner-husband,
the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is requested to explore
the facilities of Video Conferencing available in the said Court and
permit the Petitioner-husband to appear before him through
virtual mode, if so prayed, 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 his presence may be required by the Court
and if it is so ordered, the Petitioner-husband shall remain
physically present before the Court of learned Judge, Family
Court, Cuttack.
12. Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on
proper application as per rules.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, the 16th September, 2025/ Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
