TRP(C)/245/2025 of RICHI RITAMBARA Vs MANAS RANJAN DASH on 24 June 2026

ORDER

24.06.2026 (Hybrid Mode)

04.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length.

It is submitted that the petitioner-wife in the marriage works at Hyderabad, stays at Hyderabad, however, her parents stay at Sakhigopal very near to Puri, for which she seeks transfer of C.P. No.615 of 2023 at present pending before the learned Family Court, Cuttack to the Court of learned Family Judge, Puri.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Virtual Court facility is not working at Puri.

2. In considered opinion of this Court there can’t be any reason why the Virtual Court facility shall not be Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Jun-2026 17:37:22 Signature Not Verified functional at Puri. It is common knowledge that in Odisha, every headquarter station is having VC facility.

Assuming that the VC facility is not available at Puri, petitioner staying at Hyderabad cannot avail the benefit of the VC facility if at all she requires the same.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has to travel alone to Cuttack.

The said aspect has also to be considered in the context that the petitioner stays at Hyderabad and anyhow she has to travel to appear before the Court in Odisha.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-husband submits that in the C.P. pending before the learned Family Court, W.S. has been filed by the present petitioner-Opp. Party, taking of evidence has started, P.W.1-husband has been examined in part.

It is submitted that transfer of the matter to Court at Puri would not help either of the parties.

4. The petition has been filed under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which 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—

xxx

xxx

xxx

Apparently, section 24 mandates issuance of notice to both the parties and hearing both the parties. Therefore, convenience of both the parties has to be considered by the Court before directing transfer of the matter.

5. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus: “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.”

Section 7 of the Family Courts Act provides for the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides for jurisdiction and procedure and is reproduced herein: “1[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 2[(iiia) 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.]”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another: AIR 2002 SC 396.

Apparently, the said decision is of no avail to the petitioner for the fact that the petitioner therein, the wife in the marriage had sought for interstate transfer of the matrimonial proceeding initiated against her in Ara, Bhojpur in the district of Bihar as she had prayed for transfer of the matrimonial proceeding to Delhi where she was working and not to the place where her parents were staying i.e. Gurgaon in Haryana.

7. Upon perusal and consideration of the aforesaid legal provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code, Family Courts Act and the Hindu Marriage Act, in considered view of this Court, the Family Court at Cuttack is the proper Court having jurisdiction.

Convenience and perception of the wife cannot be the sole factor for deciding jurisdiction and place of litigation when the statute and the procedural law is otherwise clear as has been indicated above.

8. The prayer for transfer of the matter from Family Court, Cuttack to Family Court, Puri is accordingly rejected.

It is directed the parties to the litigation before the learned Judge, Family Court shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the matter as it is stated that the matter is already at the stage of evidence.

Learned Judge, Family Court shall proceed in accordance with law for expeditious disposal of the matter.

9. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

Urgent certified copy be issued as per Rules.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Rajesh