Page 1 of 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

TRP(C) No.58 of 2025

CNR No.ODHC010136772025

Sriya Swati Sucharita Swain ….... Petitioner

-Versus-

Truptimanas Kap ....... Opposite Party

TRP(C) No.73 of 2025

CNR No.ODHC010167542025

Sriya Swati Sucharita Swain ….... Petitioner

-Versus-

Truptimanas Kap ....... Opposite Party

Advocate for the parties

For Petitioner : Mr. Satya Ranjan Pati,

Advocate

(in both the transfer petitions)

For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Sourav,

Advocate

(in both the transfer petitions)

...................

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 03.09.2026 : Date of Judgment: 18.09.2026

_____________________________________________________________

TRP(C)/73/2025

ODHC010167542025

2026:OHC:129

Page 2 of 21

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. TRP(C) No. 58 of 2025 has been preferred by the

Petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of

proceeding in C.P. No. 262 of 2022, preferred by the present

Opposite Party-husband under Section 27(1) of the Special

Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of marriage, pending before the

Family Court, Puri to the Court of the Family Court, Cuttack on

the self-same grounds as taken in TRP(C) No.58 of 2025.

2. TRP(C) No. 73 of 2025 has also been preferred by the

Petitioner-wife for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No. 318 of 2023,

preferred by the Opposite Party-husband under Sections 24 and

25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance, pending

before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri, to the Court of

learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack on the grounds detailed in

the said transfer petition.

3. Both the transfer petitions, having been preferred by

the Petitioner-wife for transfer of proceedings from the Court of

learned Judge, Family Court, Puri to the Court of learned Judge,

Family Court, Cuttack on the selfsame ground, in which the

Opposite Party-husband has also filed his Objections on almost

identical grounds, are taken up together for hearing and disposal

by this common judgment.

Page 3 of 21

4. Reiterating the grounds urged in both the transfer

petitions, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner is a young practising lawyer of this Court. After her

desertion since October, 2021 from the residence of the Opposite

Party-husband at Bomikhal, Bhubaneswar, she has shifted to

Cuttack and continued her practice in Cuttack, which has not

been disputed by the Opposite Party in his Objection. That apart,

for her maintenance, she has preferred an application under

Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court,

Cuttack, which has been registered as CRP No.88 of 2023. Upon

being noticed, the Opposite Party-husband appeared in the said

CRP and participating in the said proceeding, which has also not

been disputed by the Opposite Party-husband in his Objection.

That apart, in the said CRP, no maintenance has been awarded till

date by the learned Court below. She being a fatherless daughter,

leading a miserable life after her desertion and stays in a rented

house in Cuttack with her widow mother, and struggling as a

young counsel, with an ambition to become a good lawyer.

5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted

that, though C.P. No. 262 of 2022 was preferred by the Opposite

Party-husband before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri under

Section 27(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for dissolution of

Page 4 of 21

marriage, as the Petitioner-wife could not appear in the said case

at Puri, the said proceeding was concluded by an ex parte

judgment on 20.12.2022 for judicial separation. Both the

Petitioner-wife and the Opposite Party-husband preferred MATA

No.78 of 2023, as well as MATA No. 160 of 2023 before this Court

challenging the said ex-parte judgment and decree dated

20.12.2022. Both the said Appeals were heard together and

disposed of by the Division Bench vide a common judgment dated

27.06.2023, thereby setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated

20.12.2022 passed in C.P. No. 262 of 2022 and directing for fresh

adjudication of the said proceeding.

After the matter was remitted to the Family Court, Puri,

the Petitioner-wife filed her written statement as well as I.A. No. 51

of 2023, under Section 36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, for

interim maintenance, which was allowed directing the Opposite

Party-husband to pay Rs. 7,000/- (rupees seven thousand) per

month to the Petitioner-wife vide order dated 02.03.2024. Instead

of complying with the said order, the Opposite Party-husband

preferred W.P.(C) No.8410 of 2024 before this Court, challenging

the said order of interim maintenance. Ultimately, vide order dated

12.09.2024, this Court disposed of the said writ petition remitting

the matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri for fresh

Page 5 of 21

adjudication of the application of the Petitioner-wife under Section

36 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 for maintenance, providing

opportunity of hearing to the parties and placing on record the

materials with regard to respective income of the parties.

The learned Judge, Family Court, Puri reconsidered I.A.

No.51 of 2023 and passed an order on 04.01.2025 directing the

Opposite Party-husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs.

4,000/- (rupees four thousand) per month and a sum of

Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) towards litigation expenses

to the Opposite Party-wife. But, till date, the Opposite Party-

husband has not paid a single penny to the Petitioner-wife towards

interim maintenance in terms of the said revised order dated

04.01.2025, thereby compelling the Petitioner to approach this

Court for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No. 262 of 2022, so also

C.P. No. 318 of 2023, which was subsequently filed by the

Opposite Party-husband before the learned Judge, Family Court,

Puri, under Sections 24 and 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

seeking maintenance from her, which is the subject matter in

TRP(C) No. 73 of 2025.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, disputed the stand

of the Opposite Party-husband that he is having financial hardship

and has no independent source of income. Relying upon the

Page 6 of 21

documents obtained under R.T.I, annexed to the Additional

Affidavit as Annexure-3, he further submitted that since

19.06.2020 the Opposite Party-husband is one of the Directors

and Promoter of Clavax Power Private Limited, having paid up

capital of Rs. 50,00,000/- and its Registered Office at Plot

No.243/2, Jharpada, Laxmisagar, Bhubaneswar. That apart the

said Company has availed cash credit facility of

Rs.3,00,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- from Bank of Baroda to

carry on business.

6.1. He further submitted that, though the Opposite Party-

husband is a permanent resident of village-Mutunia, in the district

of Puri, at present is residing at Bhubaneswar. Being financially

affluent, he would in no way be prejudiced, if both the proceedings

are transferred from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,

Puri to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack.

6.2. It was further contended that, the distance from

Bhubaneswar to Puri is around 65 Kms, whereas distance from

Bhubaneswar to Cuttack is around 25 Kms. The distance from

Cuttack to Puri is around 90 Kms, which would cause difficulty to

the Petitioner, if she is asked to appear in both the proceedings at

Puri. Rather, it would be convenient for the Opposite Party-

Page 7 of 21

husband to attend both the proceedings, if the same are

transferred to Cuttack.

6.3. Though it has not been pleaded, learned Counsel for

the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner, having little

income, as a young counsel, with much difficulty, was prosecuting

her LLM Course, which got completed recently.

7. Relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sumita

Singh Vs. Kumar Sanjay and another , reported in AIR 2002 SC

396, in Tejalben Vrs. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari , reported

in (2016) 3 SCC 69, in Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap Vrs. Shridhar

Vishwanath Jagtap, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 356, in Santhini

Vrs. Vijaya Venketesh, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 1, and in N.C.V.

Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, reported in 2022

SCC OnLine SC 1199, so also judgment of this Court in Deepika

Maharana Vs. Prasanna Maharana , reported in 2002 (II) OLR 311,

learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the law is well

settled that while considering the application for transfer of

matrimonial proceedings, convenience of the wife must be taken

into consideration.

8. So far as the stand of the Opposite Party-husband that

if the Petitioner-wife has any difficulty, she may appear through

virtual mode, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife, relying on

Page 8 of 21

the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santhini (supra), more

particularly, paragraph Nos.56, 57 and 58 of the said judgment,

further submitted that in view of the said decision of the Supreme

Court, no direction can be issued to permit the parties to appear

though videoconferencing. Such discretion rests with the Family

Court to be exercised after the Court arrives at a definite

conclusion that the settlement is not possible and both parties file

a joint application or each party filing his/her consent

memorandum seeking hearing by videoconferencing. Hence, such

a stand to oppose the prayer of the Petitioner-wife for transfer of

both the proceedings from Puri to Cuttack is unsustainable.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-

husband, opposed the prayer for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.

262 of 2022. Such opposition was basically on the grounds that, in

view of the common judgment passed by the Division Bench vide

order dated 27.06.2023 in MATA No.78 of 2023 and MATA No.160

of 2023, since, while disposing of the MATAs, a direction was given

to the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri to dispose of the

proceeding within a period of four months from the date of

communication of the said order, only the learned Judge, Family

Court, Puri is competent to hear C.P. No. 262 of 2022. Prayer for

transfer also was opposed on the ground that, though there is a

Page 9 of 21

mention in the transfer petition regarding MATA No.78 of 2023

and MATA No.160 of 2023 and disposal of those Appeals,

intentionally the Petitioner did not disclose in the transfer petition

that there was a direction to the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri

for disposal of the said proceeding within a stipulated period.

9.1. Further, it was contended that, hearing in C.P. No. 262

of 2022 has substantially progressed before preferring the TRP(C)

No.58 of 2025. Hence, at this stage, such a prayer for transfer of

proceeding from Puri, to Cuttack, if allowed, will delay the trial of

C.P. No. 262 of 2022.

9.2. It was also argued that the Opposite Party -husband is

having financial hardship and has no independent source of

income. The consequences of transfer of proceedings from Puri to

Cuttack would cause him further financial and practical hardship.

It was further argued that if the Petitioner-wife has any difficulty to

appear physically in both the said proceedings at Puri on each

date, she may pray for permission to appear through virtual mode

at appropriate stage.

10. So far as transfer of proceeding in C.P. No. 318 of 2023,

learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband opposed to such

prayer on the ground that, the Petitioner-wife, who is the Opposite

Party in C.P. No. 318 of 2023, filed an application under Order-VII

Page 10 of 21

Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the said application, which was

dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2024. Being aggrieved, the

Petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.23784 of 2024. This Court, while

issuing notice in the said writ petition, did not stay further

proceeding in C.P. No. 318 of 2023, pending before the learned

Judge, Family Court, Puri. In the circumstances, the subsequent

prayer for transfer of the very same proceeding deserves to be

rejected, considering the background of the entire course of

litigation between the parties.

10.1. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband

further contended that his client has no intention of causing any

inconvenience to the Petitioner-wife and is only seeking

adjudication of both the proceedings already instituted before the

learned Judge, Family Court, Puri. At the same time, the repeated

interruption of the said proceedings would cause further delay in

resolution of the matrimonial disputes between the parties. To

substantiate his argument, learned Counsel for the Opposite

Party-husband relied on the judgment of the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh in Ekta Vaish Vrs. Deepak Kuchbandiya ,

reported in 2026 SCC OnLine MP 1352, and a website copy of the

order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Review

Petition (C) No.472 of 2018, arising out of Transfer Petition (C)

Page 11 of 21

No.1252 of 2016 (Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan Vs. Navin

Chauhan) in support of his argument regarding permission to

appear through virtual mode.

11. So far as submission of the learned Counsel for the

Opposite Party-husband that, in view of the common judgment

dated 27.06.2023 passed in MATA No.78 of 2023 and MATA

No.160 of 2023, no direction can be issued to transfer the

proceeding to Cuttack, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife

submitted that, vide the said common judgment, to avoid delay,

the Division Bench directed the parties to appear before the

learned Judge, Family Court, Puri on 17.07.2023, with an

observation that, if possible, the proceeding be disposed of within a

period of four months from the date of communication of the said

judgment. Both the parties appeared before the learned Judge,

Family Court, Puri on 17.07.2023. However, because of the non-

appearance of the present Opposite Party-husband, who is the

Petitioner in the C.P. No. 262 of 2022, the same was dismissed for

non-prosecution on 12.09.2023. Thereafter, the Opposite Party-

husband filed CMA No.55 of 2023 under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for

setting aside the said order dated 12.09.2023, which was allowed

vide order dated 05.10.2023. Thereafter, for reasons attributed to

Page 12 of 21

the Opposite Party-husband, the proceeding could not be

concluded.

11.1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that,

since C.P. No. 262 of 20222 was dismissed for non-prosecution on

12.09.2023, which is well within the stipulated period, as observed

by the Division Bench, the said direction to the learned Judge,

Family Court, Puri lost its force after disposal of the said case

on12.09.2023, even though C.P. No. 262 of 2022 was restored to

its original file vide order dated 05.10.2023 passed in CMA No.55

of 2023. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that,

in between more than three years have elapsed after disposal of

matrimonial appeals by this Court. Under such changed

circumstances, there cannot be, and should not be, any bar to

transfer the proceeding in C.P. No. 262 of 2022 from Family Court,

Puri to Family Court, Cuttack. That apart, the allegation of

suppression of fact is incorrect.

11.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that,

though C.P. No. 262 of 2022 was preferred under Section 27 of the

Special Marriage Act, 1954 for grant of divorce, but C.P. No. 318 of

2023 was preferred subsequently by the Opposite Party-husband

under Section 24, r/w Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

claiming Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakh) per month towards

Page 13 of 21

maintenance from the Petitioner-wife to harass her. Hence, rightly

she moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of

the plaint in C.P. No. 318 of 2023.

11.3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted

that the Petitioner-wife’s application for stay of proceeding in C.P.

No. 318 of 2023 is still pending consideration. As further

proceeding in C.P. No. 318 of 2023 has not been stayed by this

Court in W.P.(C) No.23784 of 2024, there would be no bar for this

Court to pass an order for transfer of said proceeding from the

Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Puri to the Court of learned

Judge, Family Court, Cuttack before disposal of W.P.(C) No.23784

of 2024. That apart, since the Opposite Party-husband is the

Director of a Private Limited Company, and presently stationed at

Bhubaneswar, if he has any difficulty to appear physically before

the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, he may seek leave of

the learned Court below for his appearance through virtual mode

at the appropriate stage. The Petitioner has no objection to such

mode of appearance, provided the learned Court below allows such

prayer.

12. In N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra), the Supreme Court held

as follows:

Page 14 of 21

“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)

13. So far as trial through video conferencing in

matrimonial disputes, the Supreme Court in Santhini (supra),

held as follows:

“58. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we sum up

our conclusion as follows:

58.1. In view of the scheme of the 1984 Act and in

particular Section 11, the hearing of matrimonial

disputes may have to be conducted in camera.

58.2. After the settlement fails and when a

joint application is filed or both the parties file

Page 15 of 21

their respective consent memorandum for

hearing of the case through videoconferencing

before the Family Court concerned, it may

exercise the discretion to allow the said prayer.

58.3. After the settlement fails, if the Family

Court feels it appropriate having regard to the

facts and circumstances of the case that

videoconferencing will subserve the cause of

justice, it may so direct.

58.4. In a transfer petition, videoconferencing cannot

be directed.

58.5. Our directions shall apply prospectively.

58.6. The decision in Krishna Veni Nagam is

overrules to the aforesaid extent.”

(Emphasis supplied)

14. So far as other case laws cited by the learned Counsel

for the Petitioner-wife, are also in terms of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya (supra). Hence, are not dealt

with in details for the sake of brevity.

15. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned

Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband in Ekta Vaish (supra),

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that convenience of wife is

not the paramount consideration for deciding the transfer

applications and alternatives to transfer proceedings have been

provided, viz. through videoconferencing. If the matter is to be

proved by the witnesses of the place where the matter is being

Page 16 of 21

prosecuted, then the other side can suitably be adjusted by

making payment of commute.

16. So far as order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the

Supreme Court in Anjali Brahmawar Chauhan (supra), though

the Supreme Court referred to Santhini (supra), but allowed the

parties to appear through video conferencing with following

observation;

“3. Notice was issued in the Review Petition on

20.03.2018. Due to the ongoing pandemic, physical

functioning of the Courts has been stopped since

March, 2020. Proceedings in all Courts are being

conducted only through video conferencing. In the

normal course we would not have directed

video conferencing in respect of matrimonial

matters as per the judgment of this Court

mentioned above. However, in the present situation

where all proceedings are conducted through video

conferencing, we direct the Family Court, District

Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. to conduct the trail through

video conferencing.

(Emphasis supplied)

17. In the circumstances, after taking note of the pleadings

on record, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the

parties and the case laws cited by the learned Counsel for the

parties, the question for consideration is whether, notwithstanding

the earlier direction for expeditious disposal and the stage reached

Page 17 of 21

in C.P. No.262 of 2022, the overall circumstances justify exercise

of the power of transfer in the interest of justice.

18. Section 24 CPC confers a discretionary power of

transfer to be exercised where the ends of justice so require. In

matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the parties,

particularly the practical circumstances in which the wife

is required to prosecute or defend the proceedings, is

an important consideration. At the same time, the Court

must examine the circumstances of both parties and the stage

of the litigation rather than apply any inflexible rule.

19. In the present case, the Petitioner-wife is residing and

practising at Cuttack. The Opposite Party-husband is stated to be

residing at Bhubaneswar and to be a Director of a private limited

company. Cuttack is substantially nearer to Bhubaneswar than

Puri. The Opposite Party is also already contesting the proceeding

pending before the Family Court, Cuttack in CRP No.88 of 2023.

These circumstances materially reduce the prejudice, if any, that

may be caused to the Opposite Party-husband by transfer.

20. The stage of C.P. No.262 of 2022 has also been

considered. It is true that P.W.1 has been examined in chief and

cross-examined in part. That circumstance weighs against

transfer. However, the proceeding was dismissed for non-

Page 18 of 21

prosecution after the earlier remand and was thereafter restored.

The original direction for early disposal has also not resulted in

conclusion of the proceeding within the contemplated period.

The case has consequently continued for a substantial period.

The question is therefore not merely the stage of the proceeding,

but whether, on the present facts, continuation of

proceedings at Puri would impose disproportionate hardship

on the Petitioner when the matrimonial dispute as to

maintenance is already being litigated at Cuttack.

21. This Court is also conscious that transfer should not

become an instrument for delaying a matrimonial proceeding. The

record, however, does not justify a conclusion that the present

transfer petitions have been filed merely to protract the litigation.

On the contrary, both connected proceedings are sought to be

brought before the Family Court at Cuttack, where one of the

matrimonial proceedings involving the parties is already pending.

22. This Court is of the view that, the pendency of W.P.(C)

No.23784 of 2024 also does not, in the absence of a subsisting

order prohibiting further proceedings, by itself deprive this Court

of its power to transfer C.P. No.318 of 2023. The transferee Court

shall, however, remain bound by every subsisting order passed by

this Court in the said writ petition.

Page 19 of 21

23. On an overall assessment of the comparative

convenience of the parties, the place of residence and professional

circumstances of the Petitioner-wife, the location of the Opposite

Party-husband, the connected proceeding already pending at

Cuttack, and the need to avoid unnecessary hardship and

multiplicity of appearances, this Court is satisfied that the ends of

justice would be best served by transferring both proceedings to

the Family Court, Cuttack.

24. Accordingly, TRP(C) No.58 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.73 of

2025 are allowed.

25. The learned Judge, Family Court, Puri shall transmit

the records of C.P. No.262 of 2022 and C.P. No.318 of 2023 to the

learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack at the earliest, preferably

within one week from production of a certified copy of this

judgment.

26. Upon receipt of the records, the learned Judge, Family

Court, Cuttack shall re-register both the proceedings, if required,

and proceed in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to

both parties. The evidence already recorded in C.P. No.262 of 2022

shall be dealt with in accordance with law, and the trial shall not

be reopened or recommenced mechanically merely by reason of

transfer.

Page 20 of 21

27. In C.P. No.318 of 2023, the parties shall place before

the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack the orders passed in

W.P.(C) No.23784 of 2024 and any subsequent orders affecting the

proceeding. The transferee Court shall proceed subject to such

subsisting orders.

28. So far as C.P. No.262 of 2022 is concerned, if any

interlocutory application requiring adjudication is pending, the

learned Court below shall consider and dispose of the same in

accordance with law, without permitting such applications to be

used for unnecessary delay.

29. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack shall make

all reasonable endeavours to conclude C.P. No.262 of 2022

expeditiously, preferably by the end of March, 2027, subject to the

cooperation of both parties and subject to the pendency of any

proceeding or order of this Court which may affect the trial.

30. As regards appearance through videoconferencing, the

transferee Court may consider any request made by either party in

accordance with the applicable High Court Video Conferencing

Rules, 2020 and the nature and stage of the particular proceeding.

Such consideration shall remain within the discretion of the

Family Court and shall not prejudice the requirement of physical

presence, where the Court considers such presence necessary,

Page 21 of 21

particularly, for effective examination or cross-examination of

witnesses.

31. The parties shall not seek unnecessary adjournments

and shall cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack

for expeditious disposal of the proceedings.

32. The transfer petitions are accordingly allowed and

disposed of. Office shall communicate a copy of this judgment to

the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri and the learned Judge,

Family Court, Cuttack for necessary compliance.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted on

proper application as per rules.

…….……………………

S.K. MISHRA, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

Dated, 18

th September, 2026/ Kanhu