Orissa High Court
TRP(C)/47/2026 of SWETA SUBHADARSHINI Vs ADITYA KUMAR DALAI on 8 May 2026
of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK TRP (C) No.47 of 2026 Sweta Subhadarshini …. Petitioner Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Aditya Kumar Dalai …. Opp. Party CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 08.05.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 04. 1. Heard learned counsel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
TRP (C) No.47 of 2026
Sweta Subhadarshini
….
Petitioner
Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Aditya Kumar Dalai
….
Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
08.05.2026 (Hybrid Mode)
04.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner-wife in the marriage is before this Court seeking transfer of C.P. No.619 of 2025 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to be transferred to the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri. To support the prayer for transfer, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restoration of conjugal rights before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri i.e. C.P. No. 436 of 2025 dated 04.12.2025 which is as per his instruction is pending adjudication.
2. In considered opinion of this Court, filing of C.P. No.436 of 2025 by the wife at a particular place which is pending trial before a particular court cannot be a ground to transfer a C.P. which is pending before the court of competent jurisdiction.
3. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has no independent income. In response to the said submission, it has to be considered whether the persons having no independent income has a easier and better prospect to prosecute the matter at Puri instead of Cuttack.
4. Further, both the courts at Puri and Cuttack have large number of pending matrimonial cases and by transferring the case from Cuttack to Puri, the petitioner does not get any advantage as far as consideration and disposal of the matter is concerned. At both the places, she has to seek legal assistance from the lawyer who shall appear on her behalf or can seek legal aid to engage a counsel.
5. If so advised, the parties can avail the ICT facility for conducting the case at both the places. On being transferred, the matter has to be renumbered to be a case of the year 2026 at Puri though it is pending since 2025.
6. In view of the above discussion, the prayer for transfer of the petition under Section 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act i.e. Civil Proceeding No. 619 of 2025 from the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Puri is rejected.
7. 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.
8. 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 if available, for conducting hearing of the case, to either of the parties.
9. With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of.
Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to be kept in the file of Civil Proceeding No.619 of 2025.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge
jyostna Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 13-May-2026 13:55:27 Signature Not Verified