[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ujesh Gan vs Rajasmita Gan @ Das ....... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.143 of 2025
(An application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984)
Ujesh Gan ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Rajasmita Gan @ Das ....... Opposite Party
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mandal,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : None
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 09.01.2026
_____________________________________________________________
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. This transfer petition has been preferred by the
Petitioner-husband, who is the Opposite party in Matrimonial
Suit No.08 of 2025 preferred under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, shortly, 'the Act, 1955' for decree of divorce.
A prayer has been made to transfer the said Matrimonial Suit
No.08 of 2025 from the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge,
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Date: 10-Jan-2026 14:14:42
Udala to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore on
the grounds detailed in the Transfer Petition.
2. Despite notice and giving sufficient opportunity, the
Opposite Party-wife goes unrepresented when the matter is
called. Hence, as prayed by the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, the transfer petition is taken up for hearing and
disposal in absence of the Opposite Party.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer petition,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the Petitioner-
husband has preferred C.P. No.62 of 2025 under Section 9 of
the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right, which is pending
before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. The Opposite
Party-wife is yet to appear in the said proceeding though service
of notice was held to be sufficient by the learned Court below.
5. He further submits, the Petitioner is working as a
delivery boy in a courier company. He is not affluent to bear the
legal expenses. The distance from Balasore to Udala is near
about 70 K.M. It would not be possible on his part to attend the
Court proceeding on each date at Udala. Since the parents of
the Petitioner are old and ailing, being the only son, the
Petitioner is looking after them so also their property. That
apart, his minor son, who is around 9 years old, is studying in
Std.III in St. Xavier English Medium School, Chandipur,
Balasore and is staying with the Petitioner as well as his
grandparents.
6. From the conduct of the Opposite Party-wife, who is
deserted by the Petitioner, it can be well presumed that because
of her financial hardship, she is unable to appear in C.P. No.62
of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,
Balasore so also before this Court.
7. 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. Law is further well settled that when two or
more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the
same parties which raise common question of fact and law, both
the proceedings should be tried together.
8. 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:-
"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)
9. As the Opposite Party-wife has preferred
Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025 under Section 13(1) of the Act,
1955 for decree of divorce whereas, the Petitioner-husband has
preferred C.P. No.62 of 2025 under Section 9 of the said Act,
1955 for restitution of conjugal right, this Court is of the view
that both the said proceedings should be tried together. This
Court is of further view that instead of transferring Matrimonial
Suit No.08 of 2025 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Udala
to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, it would
be advisable to transfer the proceeding in C.P. No.62 of 2025 to
the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Udala for analogous hearing
with Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025. Hence, the learned Judge,
Family Court, Balasore is directed to transmit the case record in
C.P. No.62 of 2025 to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge,
Udala at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week from
the date of production of certified copy of this Judgment.
10. On receiving the case record in C.P. No.62 of 2025
from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala shall re-register the said case,
if so required, and proceed further in accordance with law giving
due opportunity to both the parties.
11. Since Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025, at the instance
of the Opposite Party-wife, is pending before the same Court and
the said suit is between the same parties, which raise common
question of fact and law, and the decisions in Matrimonial Suit
No.08 of 2025 and C.P. No.62 of 2025 are interdependent, it is
desirable that both MAT Suit No.08 of 2025 and C.P. No.62 of
2025 be tried together.
12. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala 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 Senior Civil Judge, Udala.
13. To avoid delay and notice, the parties are directed to
make a query themselves or through their Counsel regarding
the date and purpose of posting of C.P. No.62 of 2025 and
participate in the proceeding in the Court of learned Senior Civil
Judge, Udala. They are further directed not to ask for
unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Udala, who shall do well to conclude both
the proceedings in MAT Suit No.08 of 2025 and C.P. No.62 of
2025 at the earliest.
14. With the said observation and direction, the transfer
petition stands disposed of.
15. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order
to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore so also
the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala for compliance.
16. Urgent certified copy be granted on proper
application as per rules.
...............................
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated, the 9th January, 2026/ Prasant
