Page 1 of 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

TRP(C) No.449 of 2025

CNR No.ODHC010905192025

Tapaswini Mohanty ….... Petitioner

-Versus-

Jayanta Kumar Mohanty ....... Opposite Party

Advocate for the parties

For Petitioner : Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty,

Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. Amit Prasad Bose,

Advocate

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

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 09.09.2026 Date of Judgment: 17.09.2026

_____________________________________________________________

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. The Petitioner-wife has preferred the present

transfer petition under Section 24 of the C.P.C. for transfer of

proceeding in C.P. No.408 of 2024, preferred by the present

Opposite Party-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 for a decree of divorce, pending before the

Page 2 of 15

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

Judge, Family Court, Balasore on the grounds detailed in the

transfer petition.

2. Being noticed, the Opposite Party-husband has

appeared and filed an objection, opposing to the prayer for

transfer.

3. 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.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer

petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the

Petitioner-wife is a deserted lady. Having no source of income,

she is staying with her parents. She is having two male

children, who are around 17 years and 14 years old. After her

desertion, she has returned to her parental house and is

staying with her younger son and both of them are fully

dependent on her father and are living a very miserable life

because of the financial constraints. Rather, on the other

hand, the Opposite Party-husband is a financial affluent

Page 3 of 15

person, who is at present working in a company. Though the

Petitioner-wife was noticed by the learned Judge, Family

Court, Bhadrak on 14.11.2024 in C.P. No.408 of 2024, which

was made sufficient on 06.12.2024, due to death of her

Counsel, she could not appeared in the said C.P., for which,

she was set ex-parte on 10.01.2025. Subsequently, on

27.01.2025, the Petitioner-wife appeared and filed an

application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated

10.01.2025 and on 21.03.2025, the ex-parte order was set

aside. That apart, though the Opposite Party-husband is a

retired army personnel, having sound income from service

and pension, so also from other sources, he is not paying a

single pie for maintenance of Petitioner-wife as well as the

younger son. The Petitioner is a house-wife and she as well as

her younger son, being totally dependent on her father, it has

become difficult on the part of her father to maintain both of

them so also bear the litigation expenses. Accordingly, the

Petitioner-wife, finding no other way, instituted a proceeding

under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005, shortly, ‘D.V. Act’, before the learned

Page 4 of 15

J.M.F.C, Soro, which has been registered as D.V. Case No.278

of 2023, seeking monthly maintenance from the present

Opposite Party-husband. Being summoned in the said D.V.

Case, the Opposite Party-husband has appeared and filed his

written statement. The Petitioner-wife also filed an interim

application vide I.A. No.48 of 2025 in C.P. No.408 of 2024

before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak seeking

pendent lite maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955. The learned Court below, though vide

order dated 18.08.2025, ordered to pay a monthly

maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) till disposal

of the trial and one-time litigation expenses of Rs.8,000/-

(rupees eight thousand) to the Petitioner-wife, the Opposite

Party on 09.09.2025 has paid Rs.13,000/- (rupees thirteen

thousand) only to the Petitioner-wife. After that, not a single

pie was paid to the Petitioner-wife by the Opposite Party-

husband. That apart, the Petitioner-wife, being a destitute

lady, having no income, has filed an application under Section

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

for maintenance, which has been registered as CRP No.202 of

Page 5 of 15

2025, which is pending for consideration. Though the

Opposite Party-husband is well aware about the fact that the

Petitioner-wife, after her desertion, is staying at her parental

house situated at Balasore, he has instituted C.P. No.408 of

2024 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak with

an intention to harass the Petitioner-wife. Further, the

distance from the parental house of the Petitioner to the Court

at Bhadrak would be around 60 K.Ms. She being a destitute

lady, having no income and except her old father, there being

no male member in the family to accompany her, it would be

difficult on her part to travel such a long distance to attend

the day-to-day proceeding at Bhadrak along with her minor

child. That apart, two other proceedings at her instance are

pending at Soro as well as Balasore. Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner-wife further submitted that as per the settled

position of law, paramount consideration for transfer of the

matrimonial proceedings is the convenience of the wife.

Accordingly, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for

transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.408 of 2024 from Bhadrak to

Balasore.

Page 6 of 15

6. Per contra, relying on the reply affidavit filed in the

present proceeding, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-

husband submitted that, the learned Judge, Family Court,

Bhadrak, by order dated 18.08.2025 passed in I.A. No.48 of

2025 (arising out of C.P. No.408 of 2024), though allowed the

monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the Petitioner-wife till

conclusion of the trial and one time litigation expenses of

Rs.8,000/-, pursuant to said order the Opposite Party-

husband paid Rs.13,000/- to the Petitioner-wife on

09.09.2025. Since then, the Petitioner-wife is neither

attending the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak

nor co-operating with the said Court for early disposal of C.P.

No.408 of 2024 and only haziras and time petition are being

filed by her Counsel, to drag the litigation.

7. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband

further submitted that, the Petitioner-wife filed D.V. Case

No.278 of 2023, under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, 2005

before the learned J.M.F.C., Soro seeking monthly

maintenance from the Opposite Party, as she is presently

residing at village Patimunda, whereas she also filed CRP

Page 7 of 15

No.202 of 2025 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned

Judge, Family Court, Balasore seeking for maintenance for

herself as well as for her child. Learned Counsel for the

Opposite Party-husband further submitted that, the distance

from Bhadrak to Soro would be around 36 K.Ms, whereas the

distance from Soro to Balasore is also around 36 K.Ms.

Hence, it would not be difficult for the Petitioner-wife to travel

from Soro to Bhadrak. Rather, the distance from Bhadrak to

Balasore being 71 K.M.s, it would be difficult on the part of

the Opposite Party-husband to travel such a long distance to

attend the day-to-day proceeding at Balasore. He further

submitted that, the Petitioner-wife is financially sound as she

is earning a substantial amount from her independent source

of income by giving home tuition, which is denied by the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife. That apart, there is no

threat to the life of the Petitioner-wife, if she attends the

proceedings at Bhadrak. Further, though the Opposite Party-

husband, who is the Petitioner in C.P. No.408 of 2024, has

filed his affidavit evidence as P.W.1, but he is yet to be cross-

examined by the Petitioner-wife, as she is not cooperating

Page 8 of 15

with the Court below in the said proceeding, only with an

intention to harass the Opposite Party-husband.

8. So far as distance plea taken in the transfer

petition, to substantiate his submission, learned Counsel for

the Opposite Party-husband, relied on the recent order passed

by the coordinate Bench dated 12.01.2026 in TRP(C) No.285

of 2025 (Chinmayee Behera Vs. Binod Kumar Jena ). So far

as appearance through virtual mode, learned Counsel for the

Opposite Party relied on the judgment dated 18.08.2026

passed by this Court in TRP(C) No.51 of 2025 ( Namrata

Samal Vs. Sanjit Kumar Pradhan ). Accordingly, learned

Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband prayed for dismissal

of the present transfer petition.

9. To counter the allegations made by learned

Counsel for the Opposite Party, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner further submitted that the maternal native place of

the Petitioner-wife is village-Patimunda, which is around 2

K.Ms away from Soro. Hence, she has rightly filed D.V. Misc.

Case No.278 of 2023 before the learned J.M.F.C., Soro. So far

as the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., since Village-

Page 9 of 15

Patimunda, P.S.-Soro, Dist-Balasore comes under the

territorial jurisdiction of learned Judge, Family Court,

Balasore, she has rightly preferred CRP No.202 of 2025 before

said Court. That apart, since the Opposite Party-husband is

appearing in CRP No.202 of 2025 at Balasore, being

financially affluent, if the proceeding in C.P. No.408 of 2024 is

also transferred to the same Court, both the proceedings can

be taken up simultaneously by posting the cases to a single

date, which would be convenient for both the parties.

10. It may not be out of place to mention here that

since there was an allegation of non-payment of interim

maintenance, as per the order passed in I.A. No.48 of 2025

(arising out of C.P. No.408 of 2024) and counter allegation

regarding non-receipt of the said maintenance awarded by the

learned Court below, on being directed by this Court vide

order dated 18.08.2026, learned Counsel for the Opposite

Party-husband on 25.08.2026, handed over a cheque dated

22.08.2026 for an amount of Rs.35,000/- (rupees thirty five

thousand), drawn in the name of the Petitioner-wife, to the

Page 10 of 15

learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife towards up-to-date

maintenance.

11. Having regard to the pleadings, the rival

submissions and the materials placed on record, the following

points arise for consideration:

I. Whether the Petitioner-wife has established

sufficient and bona fide hardship so as to warrant

transfer of C.P. No.408 of 2024 from Bhadrak to

Balasore in the interest of justice?

II. Whether the hardship of either party can be

adequately addressed by alternative safeguards

such as virtual appearance, exemption from

personal appearance, or other directions, and, if

not, what order would best to secure the ends of

justice?

12. Law is well settled that the power under Section 24

of the CPC is to be exercised when the ends of justice so

demand. In matrimonial matters, while the convenience of the

wife is an important consideration, the Court is required to

examine the facts of each case and balance the comparative

hardship of both parties. In N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S.

Page 11 of 15

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 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.”

(Emphasis supplied)

13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the

decision in Chinmayee Behera (supra), relied upon by the

learned Counsel for the Opposite-Party, does not alter the

above conclusion, since the said decision was rendered on the

particular factual circumstances of the said case. In the

present case, the hardship pleaded by the Petitioner-wife is

supported by the distance involved, her financial

circumstances, her residence with aged and ailing parents,

the responsibility towards her minor son and the pendency of

the connected maintenance proceeding at Balasore, in which

case the Opposite-Party husband has appeared and

Page 12 of 15

contesting the case at Balasore. On a cumulative

consideration of these circumstances, the balance of

convenience and the ends of justice favour transfer of the

matrimonial proceeding to Balsore.

14. Having regard to the difficulty of distance, which

the Opposite Party-husband is likely to face, the learned

Judge, Family Court, Balasore shall, subject to the applicable

rules and orders of the Court, consider permitting him to

appear through virtual mode and shall not insist upon his

physical presence, except where such presence is considered

necessary for the effective adjudication of the proceeding.

15. All the points, detailed above, are answered

accordingly.

16. Accordingly, the learned Judge, Family Court,

Bhadrak is directed to transmit the case record in C.P No.408

of 2024 to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,

Balasore at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week

from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

17. On receiving the case record in C.P No.408 of 2024

from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak, the

Page 13 of 15

Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore shall re-

register the said case, if so required, so also post the said

proceeding to the same date as of CRP No.202 of 2025 and

proceed further in accordance with law, by posting both the

cases simultaneously to a single date.

18. Since the Opposite Party is a resident of Bhadrak

and basically has taken a stand of distance from Bhadrak to

Balsore to oppose the prayer for transfer, both the parties are

permitted to appear through virtual mode, if they face any

difficulty to appear physically before the learned Judge,

Family Court, Balasore.

19. Accordingly, the Court of learned Judge, Family

Court, Balasore 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 Cou rt

Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, if so prayed by

any of the parties. 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

Page 14 of 15

the Court below and if it is so ordered, the parties shall

remain physically present before the Court of learned Judge,

Family Court, Balasore.

20. 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.408 of

2024 and attend the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,

Balasore.

21. Both the parties are further directed not to seek for

unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the Court of

learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, who shall do well to

conclude both the proceedings in C.P No.408 of 2024 and

CRP No.202 of 2025 at the earliest, preferably by the end of

March, 2027.

22. With the said observation and direction, the

transfer petition stands allowed and disposed of.

23. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this

Judgment to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,

Bhadrak so also the Court of learned Judge, Family Court,

Balasore for compliance.

Page 15 of 15

24. Interim order dated 24.12.2025 passed in I.A.

No.477 of 2025 stands vacated. Accordingly, the I.A. also

stands disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this judgment be granted

on proper application as per rules.

…….……………………

S.K. MISHRA, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

Dated, 17

th September, 2026/Kanhu