Connected matrimonial proceedings under Sections 9 and 13 should be tried together to avoid conflicting decisions.

The husband’s divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was pending before the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar; the wife’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 was pending before the Family Court, Cuttack.

Earlier transfer petitions by both parties had been dismissed on 7 May 2025, after mediation failed and the parties could not agree on a common venue.

The Supreme Court subsequently directed the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar, to expedite the divorce petition.

The husband renewed his request to transfer the wife’s petition to Bhubaneswar, while the wife sought transfer of the divorce petition to Cuttack or, alternatively, to another Family Court at Bhubaneswar and sought common trial of the proceedings.

The divorce proceeding had substantially progressed, including the husband’s evidence, and the wife’s evidence was underway.

Whether the wife’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act should be transferred from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar for a common or consolidated trial with the husband’s divorce petition, notwithstanding the earlier dismissal of transfer petitions.

Whether the proceedings could be conducted using evidence already recorded in the divorce petition, while preserving the parties’ procedural rights.

Under Sections 9 and 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights and divorce may raise interconnected issues.

In N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Supreme Court stated that proceedings between the same parties involving common questions of fact and law should desirably be tried together to avoid duplicated proceedings and conflicting decisions.

Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, (1981) 2 SCC 646, supports bringing closely connected matrimonial proceedings together and confirms that Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act does not exclude the broader power to transfer or consolidate proceedings where justice requires.

The Court also considered Amruta Ben Himanshu Kumar Shah v. Himanshu Kumar Pravinchandra Shah, AIR 2021 SC 688.

Consolidation must remain subject to procedural fairness, including the parties’ opportunity to address genuinely new facts or issues.

The Court found that the two matrimonial proceedings were closely connected and should be tried together to reduce duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings.

It considered the changed circumstances, including the Supreme Court’s direction to expedite the divorce petition, the substantial progress of that proceeding, and the wife’s existing attendance at proceedings in Bhubaneswar.

It concluded that transfer of the wife’s petition to Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar, would not materially prejudice her and would facilitate a common trial.

To protect procedural fairness, the Court directed that existing evidence be used only to the extent legally permissible and relevant, with further evidence confined to genuinely new facts or issues and the other party retaining the right to cross-examine where appropriate.

Family Court-I was directed to conduct a common or consolidated trial with the husband’s divorce petition, C.P. No.1187 of 2022, while preserving procedural rights and endeavouring to avoid unnecessary duplication of evidence.

Both transfer petitions were disposed of; interim orders were vacated, with no order as to costs.