TRP(C)/19/2025 of CHINMAYEE BARIK Vs HIMANSHU SEKHAR BARIK on 1 July 2026

J U D G M E N T

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing and judgment: 1st July, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioner-wife in the marriage is before this court seeking transfer of Civil Proceeding No.198 of 2024 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara to the court of learned Judge, Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar.

The C.P. has been initiated by the husband in the marriage under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights solemnized between the parties on 03.07.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that several applications on behalf of the opposite party are pending at Bhubaneswar before the courts of jurisdiction and the matter initiated at Kendrapara should be transferred to Bhubaneswar.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the opposite party will face immense difficulty in appearing at Bhubaneswar. It is further submitted that unfounded allegations have been made in the petition seeking transfer of the proceeding.

4. Regarding jurisdiction of the courts to take up the petition, Section 19 under Chapter V of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides Jurisdiction and Procedure, which is reproduced herein: “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 solemnised, 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.”

5. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides Jurisdiction. The said section is reproduced herein: “7. Jurisdiction.-(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall- (a)have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation.-The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:-…”

6. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus: “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal.—(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion, without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may, at any stage—

(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and

(i) try or dispose of the same; or

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or

(iii) re-transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn. ...”

7. Perusal of the Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 7 of the Family Courts Act indicates that in the case at hand the petition filed by the wife in the marriage is before the Court of proper territorial jurisdiction. Transfer of the C.P. after two years would result in a situation where the suit has to be renumbered as a C.P. of 2026 and the trial that has proceeded till date would be rendered nugatory.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party, in considered view of this Court, the prayer for transfer of C.P. No.198 of 2024 instituted by the opposite party-husband from the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara to the court of learned Judge, Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar cannot be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioner has not made out a case for directing transfer.

9. Accordingly, it is directed that the parties shall cooperate in the proceeding pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapra for expeditious disposal of the said matter.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-wife may be allowed to utilize the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) facility if available.

For utilizing the facility such as virtual Court, virtual hearing etc. the petitioner if so advised shall move the Learned Court in seisin of the matter. If any such prayer is made, the Learned Court shall pass orders in accordance with law for extending the ICT facilities for conducting hearing of the case, to either of the parties.

11. The petition stands disposed of.

Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara to be kept in the file of C.P. No.198 of 2024.

Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 1st July, 2026/Jyostna Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Jul-2026 11:23:43 Signature Not Verified