Matrimonial proceedings raising common issues should be tried together, with due regard to the wife’s convenience.

The petitioner-wife filed a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking transfer of C.P. No. 322 of 2025, pending before the Family Court, Balasore, to the Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar.

The opposite party-husband appeared but filed no written objection and, on instructions, consented to the transfer. He requested, however, that C.P. No. 322 of 2025 and C.P. No. 623 of 2025, already pending before the Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, be disposed of expeditiously.

C.P. No. 623 of 2025 had been filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

1. Whether C.P. No. 322 of 2025 should be transferred from the Family Court, Balasore, to the Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, having regard to the petitioner-wife’s convenience and the parties’ consent.

2. Whether C.P. Nos. 322 and 623 of 2025, pending before different courts but involving the same parties and related matrimonial issues, should be tried together to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments.

3. Whether directions should be issued permitting virtual appearance and ensuring the expeditious disposal of both proceedings.

The Court applied Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings where the ends of justice so require.

In matrimonial transfer matters, the wife’s convenience is generally to be given due consideration, having regard to the parties’ economic circumstances, social position, livelihood, and related factors.

Relying on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Court reiterated that proceedings between the same parties involving common questions of fact and law, and interdependent decisions, should preferably be tried together by the same court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.

The Court also referred to the High Court of Orissa and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025, for virtual appearances.

The Court found that the petitioner-wife’s request for transfer was supported by the pleadings, the circumstances stated in the petition, and the husband’s express submission of no objection.

Since C.P. No. 623 of 2025, filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, was already pending before the Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, transferring C.P. No. 322 of 2025 to the same court would enable both matters to be tried together.

This course was considered desirable because the proceedings involved the same parties and potentially overlapping factual and legal questions, thereby reducing the risk of inconsistent findings and duplicated proceedings.

To balance convenience and ensure speedy adjudication, the Court permitted the parties to seek virtual appearance where appropriate, while requiring physical presence for effective hearings such as evidence, cross-examination, and conciliation when directed by the Family Court.

The Family Court, Balasore, was directed to transmit the record of C.P. No. 322 of 2025 to the Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, preferably within seven days of production of the certified judgment.

The Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, was directed to re-register the case if necessary and try C.P. Nos. 322 and 623 of 2025 together, preferably concluding both by the end of June 2027.

The parties were permitted to appear through video conferencing with the court’s permission, subject to physical appearance when required for effective hearings.

They were directed to ascertain hearing dates, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the proceedings.

The interim order dated 29 October 2025 was vacated and the connected interlocutory application was disposed of.