Gayatri Mohanty vs Baibhav Ranjan Patra ... ... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2026

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           TRP(C) No. 31 of 2026
           Gayatri Mohanty                 ...       ...           Petitioner


                                     -Versus-
           Baibhav Ranjan Patra            ...       ...       Opposite Party



          Advocates appeared in this case:
          For Petitioner :      Mr. S.S.Chaini, Advocate

          For Opp. Party:

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
                                JUDGMENT

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Decided on : 18th March, 2026

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioner-wife in the marriage is before this Court seeking transfer of the C.P. No. 585 of 2025 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. The said C.P. has been filed by the husband in the marriage under sections 11 & 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaratory relief i.e. "so-called marriage dated 24.11.2024 between the petitioner and the respondent-wife" as alleged and claimed by the respondent to be declared as nullity.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-wife stays with her parents at Bhadrak after her marriage ran into rough weather. The address has also been indicated in the cause title of the C.P. It is further submitted that the husband-petitioner before the learned trial court does not stay within the jurisdiction of the said court and the said court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard extensively.

Learned counsel relies on Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act to submit that the matrimonial proceeding initiated by the husband in the marriage seeking restitution of conjugal rights could not have been initiated before the learned Judge Family Court, Balasore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. For convenience of reference, the said Section is reproduced herein:-

"CHAPTER V JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE [19. Court to which petition shall be presented.--Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district Court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction:--

(i) the marriage was solemnized, or

(ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, or

(iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, or [(iii-a) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or]

(iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.]"

4. It is submitted that none of the four conditions specified in Section 19 as quoted above are satisfied in case of the opposite party, who has filed the C.P. at Balasore for the Family Court, to have territorial jurisdiction.

5. In the context of the submissions made, the learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to go through the copy of the petition filed before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, wherein address of the petitioner has been given in the cause title as "Sri Baibhab Ranjan Patra, aged about 27 years, S/o Sri Goura Chandra Patra, At Sorishakotha, P.O. Palasia, P.S. Baisinga, Dist. Mayurbhanj, at present At Haladia, P.O. Alada, P.S. Remuna, Dist. Balasore." Further, Paragraphs-7(xi), (xvi) and 15 of the petition are reproduced herein:

"7(xi). That, though the affidavit shows that, the Village of the respondent is "Gopdalakhs" but the stamp paper shows that the Village of the respondent is at Bideipur. Village Godalakhs and Village Bideipur are different Villages.

xxx xxx xxx

7(xvi) That, the C.P. also has been filed within one year from dtd. 24.11.2024 and on dtd. 13.09.2024 when the fraud discovered for the first time as committed by the respondent.

So the so-called marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as alleged by the respondent is void on the grounds mentioned above along with other grounds.

xxx xxx xxx

15. That, the cause of action for the C.P. arose on dtd. 13.09.2025, when the petitioner came to know about the alleged so-called document fraudulently managed to have been prepared by the respondent on dtd. 24.11.2024."

6. The petitioner-wife has mentioned the address of the opposite party-'husband', S/o- Goura Chandra Patra, residing at Sorishakotha, P.O. Palasia, P.S. Baisinga, Dist. Mayurbhanj".

7. Paragraph-2 of the C.P. stating the details of the address of the petitioner-opp. party husband was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the averments made in paragraph-2 of the petition are not correct.

8. Section 9 of the C.P.C. in Part-I provides for jurisdiction of the Courts and res judicata. It would be apposite to reproduce the said section which assumes importance in addressing the issue raised in the present petition.

"PART I SUITS IN GENERAL Jurisdiction of the Courts and res judicata

9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred. - The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred."

9. In considered view of this Court in view of Section 9 of the CPC, at the stage of filing of a suit, may be before a Court which would lack territorial jurisdiction due to specific provisions of statute, it cannot be said that the suit cannot be initiated before the said court and after notices are issued to the opposite party, at that stage the suit has to be transferred by the High Court exercising jurisdiction u/s.24 of the C.P.C. to another Court claimed by the defendant to have jurisdiction.

The contentions, if any, regarding jurisdiction of the Court at the first instance can be and has to be decided

by the learned Court in seisin of the matter, if raised by the defendant.

10. The opposite party (petitioner herein) if so wishes, may raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction at the appropriate stage, before the Court where the suit is filed.

Section 9 of CPC mandates unless there is any express or implied bar, the learned Court shall have jurisdiction to try the matrimonial petition which is a suit in the civil nature. Further, the Court shall decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction if raised by the opposite party/respondent.

11. Reading of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act makes it abundantly clear that the said Section limits the territorial jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain petition under the Act. However, the said Section cannot be read and interpreted to conclude that it would be a bar for filing of petition under the Act before a particular Court.

12. Apparently, the petitioner is raising a issue of territorial jurisdiction which is a mixed question of fact and law, and it shall be open for the petitioner, if so advised to raise it before the Court where the matter is pending and notices have been issued to her being the opposite party i.e. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore.

13. In considered opinion of this Court, at this stage, this Court exercising power U/s.24 of CPC cannot express any opinion regarding the issue as it requires evaluation of the facts and possibly would be a matter of evidence to be adduced by the parties if such issue is raised.

14. In view of the above, at this stage, it cannot be held that Section 19 is a bar for filing the suit, which has been filed i.e. C.P. No.1247 of 2025 U/s.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the learned Judge, Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar.

It has to be and is held that the petition filed by the husband U/s.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 at this stage cannot be directed by this Court to be transferred to the Court at Berhampur as sought for by the opposite party-wife.

15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

16. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to raise all such grounds that would be permissible under law at any stage including at the stage of filing her written statement before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. This Court has expressed no opinion regarding any of the issues that may be raised by either of the parties.

17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, if required shall avail the facility of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)/digital facility in the proceeding before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore.

It is directed that the parties to the litigation before the learned Court in seisin of C.P. No.585 of 2025, if so advised, shall make application before the said Court for extending the facility of ICT such as virtual hearing, deposition etc. Upon making such application, learned court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

18. It is further clarified that this Court while considering the present petition has not considered the merits of the case of the parties to the litigation in any manner. The discussions made while adjudicating the present matter shall not be treated to be the opinion of this Court regarding the contentions of the parties that may be raised before the learned trial Court.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 18th March, 2026/dutta

asant

TRP(C) No.20:54:05