ANKITA KUMARI TRIPATHY @ PATRA vs KRUSHNA PRASAD PATRA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
TRP(C) No.381 of 2024
(CNR No. ODHC010851742024)
Ankita Kumari Tripathy @ Patra ….... Petitioner
-Versus-
Krushna Prasad Patra ....... Opposite Party
TRP(C) No.389 of 2024
(CNR No.ODHC010851662024)
Ankita Kumari Tripathy @ Patra ….... Petitioner
-Versus-
Krushna Prasad Patra ....... Opposite Party
Advocate for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
(In both the transfer petitions) Along with
Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
(In both the transfer petitions)
Along with
Mr. Subhankar Das, Advocate
...................
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 28.10.2026
_____________________________________________________________
1 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. TRP(C) No.381 of 2024 has been filed by the
Petitioner-wife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, seeking transfer of C.P. No.280 of 2021, filed
by the Opposite Party-husband under Section 13(1) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage, pending before
the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur to the
Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, on
the grounds stated therein.
Similarly, in TRPC No.389 of 2024, which is also on
board today, the Petitioner-wife has also sought for transfer of
C.P. No.305 of 2021, instituted by her under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights,
from the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court,
Berhampur, to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar, on the self same grounds as stated in TRP(C)
No.381 of 2024.
2. Since both the transfer petitions involve the same
parties and arise out of connected matrimonial proceedings,
and the grounds urged in support of the prayers for transfer
2 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
are substantially identical, both the matters are taken up
together for hearing and disposal by way of this common
judgment.
3. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for
the Petitioner so also Mr. Tripathy, learned Sr. Advocate
appearing for the Opposite Party.
4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer
petitions, Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner-wife submits, at the time of institution of both the
matrimonial proceedings, the Petitioner was residing at
Berhampur with her aged and ailing parents and was
employed at Bengaluru. Subsequently, she left her
employment at Bengaluru and joined a new job at
Bhubaneswar, where her aged and ailing parents had also
shifted to avail better medical treatment. He further submits,
the minor daughter of the Petitioner, who is aged about four
years, has been admitted to Sai International School at
Bhubaneswar for her education.
5. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that the
Petitioner, being a deserted woman, is residing with her aged
3 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
and ailing parents and would face considerable hardship if
required to travel to Berhampur on each date of hearing to
attend the matrimonial proceedings. He also submits, as the
Opposite Party-husband is presently residing at Bengaluru,
no undue prejudice would be caused to him if the proceedings
are transferred from Berhampur to Bhubaneswar, which has
convenient air connectivity.
6. Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner-wife
further submits, in view of the settled position of law, the
convenience of the wife is an important consideration while
deciding a prayer for transfer of matrimonial proceedings.
Accordingly, he prays that both C.P. No.280 of 2021 and C.P.
No.305 of 2021 be transferred from the Court of the learned
Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, to the Court of the learned
Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.
7. Per contra, Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate for
the Opposite Party-husband, submits that both the
matrimonial proceedings were instituted in the year 2021,
whereas the Petitioner approached this Court seeking transfer
of proceedings only in the year 2024, after a delay of
4 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
approximately three years. He further submits, although the
Petitioner claims to have secured employment at
Bhubaneswar, no documentary evidence in support of such
employment has been annexed to the transfer petitions.
Similarly, no cogent material has been placed on record to
substantiate that the minor daughter is pursuing her
education at Bhubaneswar.
7.1. Relying upon the principles governing the exercise of
transfer jurisdiction, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite
Party-husband further submits, although the convenience of
the wife is a paramount consideration in matrimonial matters,
it cannot be treated as the sole determining factor in every
case.
8. Law is well settled that while considering application
for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, convenience of wife
must be looked at and matrimonial proceedings may
appropriately be brought together so as to avoid conflicting
decisions. In N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik
Sha), reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Supreme
Court held as follow:
5 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
“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.
10. Further, when two or more proceedings are
pending in different Courts between the same
parties which raise common question of fact
and law, and when the decisions in the cases
are interdependent, it is desirable that they
should be tried together by the same Judge so
as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same
issues and conflict of decisions.”
(Emphasis supplied)
8.1. Further in Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda
Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, reported in (1981) 2 SCC
646 : AIR 1981 SC 1143, the Supreme Court held that
matrimonial proceedings may appropriately be brought
together so as to avoid conflicting decisions and observed, in
substance, that it will ordinarily be expedient to have a joint
or consolidated hearing/trial of closely connected matrimonial
proceedings, including a husband’s petition for restitution of
6 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
conjugal rights and the wife’s petition for judicial separation.
The said decision also confirms that Section 21A of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 is not to be read as excluding the broader
procedural power of transfer/consolidation where justice
requires it.
9. Having considered the submissions made by learned
Senior Advocate for the parties, the grounds urged in the
transfer petitions and the settled position of law, this Court is
of the view that the circumstances of the Petitioner-wife
justify the transfer of both matrimonial proceedings to
Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner is employed at Bhubaneswar,
resides with her aged and ailing parents, and has to look after
her minor daughter’s educational needs. These
circumstances, taken together, favour the transfer of the
proceedings. Further, as the Opposite Party-husband is
presently residing at Bengaluru, the transfer of proceeding to
Bhubaneswar would not cause him any undue prejudice. The
delay in filing the transfer petitions and the absence of
documentary evidence, as pointed out by the learned Sr.
Advocate for the Opposite Party-husband, do not override the
7 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
grounds justifying transfer in the facts and circumstances of
the present cases. Accordingly, the prayer for transfer
deserves to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, the learned Judge, Family Court,
Berhampur is directed to transmit both the case records, i.e.,
C.P. No.280 of 2021 and C.P. No.305 of 2021, to the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar at the earliest,
preferably, within a period of seven days from the date of
production of certified copy of this Judgment.
11. On receiving the case record in C.P. No.280 of 2021
and C.P. No.305 of 2021 from the Court of learned Judge,
Family Court, Berhampur, the Court of learned Judge, Family
Court-I, Bhubaneswar shall re-register the said cases, if so
required, and proceed further in accordance with law giving
due opportunity to both the parties and shall try to conclude
the said proceedings at the earliest.
12. Since C.P. No.280 of 2021 has been instituted by the
Opposite Party-husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of marriage, and C.P.
No.305 of 2021 has been instituted by the Petitioner-wife
8 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
under Section 9 of the said Act, seeking restitution of conjugal
rights, both proceedings shall be tried together so as to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings and the possibility of conflicting
judgments. For this purpose, the learned Judge, Family
Court-1, Bhubaneswar, shall endeavour to record common
evidence, wherever permissible in law, so that the parties are
not unnecessarily required to repeat the same examination-in-
chief and cross-examination in both proceedings. Such
evidence shall be read in both proceedings to the extent legally
permissible and relevant to the issues arising therein.
13. It is made further clear that, to expedite the trial,
both the parties will be at liberty to appear before the Court of
learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar through virtual
mode, with due permission of the concerned Court, in case
they face any difficulty on any date to appear physically before
the said Court.
14. The learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar is
requested to explore the facility of video conferencing available
in the said Court and allow the parties to appear through
video conferencing mode, following the guidelines prescribed
9 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
under the “High Court of Orissa and District Courts Use of
Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means
Rules, 2025”.
15. 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 the
Court and if it is so ordered, the parties so also their
witnesses, if any, shall remain physically present before the
Court of learned Judge, Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar.
16. To avoid delay and notice, both the parties are
directed to make a query themselves or through their Counsel
from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-I,
Bhubaneswar to ascertain the date and purpose of posting of
C.P. No.280 of 2021 and C.P. No.305 of 2021 and participate
in the said proceedings.
17. Having regard to the fact that both matrimonial
proceedings were instituted in the year 2021, both the parties
are further directed not to seek for unnecessary adjournments
and cooperate with the learned Judge, Family Court-I,
Bhubaneswar, who shall do well to conclude the said
10 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024
proceedings at the earliest, preferably, by the end of June,
2027, provided there is no legal impediment.
18. With the said observation and direction, both the
transfer petitions stand allowed and disposed of.
19. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this
Judgment to the Court of learned Judge Family Court-I,
Bhubaneswar enabling the said Court to act in terms of the
observations made above.
20. Any interim order passed in either of the transfer
petitions stands vacated. All pending interlocutory
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this Judgment be granted on
proper application as per rules.
…….……………………
S.K. MISHRA, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
th
Dated, the 28 October, 2026/ Prasant
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 31-Oct-2026 13:09:28
Signature Not Verified
11 11
Page of
TRP(C) No.381 & 389 of 2024