AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Mishra, J.
The present transfer petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.259 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar on the grounds detailed in the transfer petition.
Since pleadings are complete, on consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the transfer petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
In addition to the grounds urged in the transfer petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife submits, at the instance of the Petitioner-wife C.P. No.333 of 2025, initiated under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court-1, Bhubaneswar. As per the settled position of law, 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. Hence, C.P. No.259 of 2025 filed at the instance of the Opposite Party-husband be transferred and tried together with C.P. No.333 of 2025.
Though a Counter Affidavit has been filed by the Opposite Party-husband opposing to the prayer for transfer of proceeding, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband submits, as per the latest instruction received from the Opposite Party-husband, he has no objection, if the prayer for transfer is allowed. However, both the proceedings be tried together and a direction be given to the learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar for early disposal of both the proceedings. That apart, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband further submits, the Opposite Party-husband is a software engineer. Though he is posted at Bangalore, at present he is doing work from home. Accordingly, she prays to permit her client to appear through virtual mode, if he faces any difficulty to appear physically before the learned Court below on any date and if work from home permission accorded in favour of the Opposite Party-husband is revoked by the Employer.
Law is well settled that while considering application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of wife must be looked at. That apart, 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. In N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha), reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Supreme Court held as follow:
“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)
In Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 646 : AIR 1981 SC 1143, the Supreme Court held that matrimonial proceedings may appropriately be brought together so as to avoid conflicting decisions and observed, in substance, that it will ordinarily be expedient to have a joint or consolidated hearing/trial of closely connected matrimonial proceedings, including a husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the wife’s petition for judicial separation. The said decision also confirms that Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not to be read as excluding the broader procedural power of transfer /consolidation where justice requires it.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, pleadings made in the transfer petition, the concession made by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband and the settled position of law, this Court is inclined to allow the prayer made in the transfer petition.
Accordingly, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is directed to transmit the case record in C.P. No.259 of 2025 to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar at the earliest, preferably, within a period of seven days from the date of production of certified copy of this Judgment.
On receiving the case record in C.P. No.259 of 2025 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar shall re-register the said case, if so required, and proceed further in accordance with law giving due opportunity to both the parties and shall try to conclude the said proceeding at the earliest.
Since C.P. No.259 of 2025 has been preferred by the Opposite Party-husband under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage and C.P. No.333 of 2025 has been preferred by the Petitioner-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings so also conflicting judgements, both C.P. No.259 of 2025 and C.P. No.333 of 2025 shall be tried together.
It is made clear that there should not be separate evidence in both the proceedings, thereby requiring the parties to repeat the same examination-in-chief and cross-examination in two files, which would defeat the very purpose of analogous hearing. Common evidence should ordinarily be recorded once, which shall be read in both proceedings insofar as it relates to the issues therein.
It is made further clear that, to expedite the trial, both the parties will be at liberty to appear before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar through virtual mode, with due permission of the concerned Court, in case they face any difficulty on any date to appear physically before the said Court.
The learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar is requested to explore the facility of video conferencing available in the said Court and allow the parties to appear through video conferencing mode, following the guidelines prescribed under the “High Court of Orissa and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025”.
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 so also their witnesses, if any, shall remain physically present before the learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar.
To avoid delay and notice, both the parties are directed to make a query themselves or through their Counsel from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar to ascertain the date and purpose of posting of C.P. No.259 of 2025 and participate in the said proceeding.
Both the parties are further directed not to seek for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court-1, Bhubaneswar, who shall do well to conclude the proceedings in C.P No.259 of 2025 so also C.P. No.333 of 2025 at the earliest, preferably, by end of June, 2027, provided there is no legal impediment.
With the said observation and direction, the transfer petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Office is directed to communicate a copy of this Judgment to the Court of learned Judge Family Court, Cuttack so also the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar enabling the said Courts to act in terms of the observations made above.
Interim order dated 08.09.2025 passed in I.A. No.278 of 2025 stands vacated. The said I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.
Urgent certified copy of this Judgment be granted on proper application as per rules.