Orissa HC Rejects Husband’s Bid to Move Wife’s Maintenance Case From Kendrapada, Citing Her Financial Dependence and Toddler Daughter

The husband sought transfer under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), of the wife’s maintenance proceeding, CRP No. 190 of 2025 under Section 144 BNSS, from the Family Court, Kendrapada, to the Family Court, Cuttack.

He cited an alleged risk to his life at Kendrapada and difficulty obtaining leave from his employer.

The wife opposed transfer, stating that she lived at Kendrapada with their two-year-old daughter, had no independent income, and would face difficulty travelling to Cuttack.

Mediation failed; the petition was heard at the admission stage, with the husband’s transfer request ultimately refused.

Section 447 BNSS provides the basis invoked for seeking transfer of the proceeding.

In considering transfer in matrimonial matters, the court applied the principle that the wife’s convenience generally warrants particular consideration, assessed alongside the parties’ economic and social circumstances and other relevant factors.

It relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, which identifies these considerations and states that, given prevailing socio-economic conditions, the wife’s convenience must generally be considered.

The court also directed that any virtual appearances be governed by the Orissa High Court and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025.

The court weighed the husband’s asserted safety and employment concerns against the wife’s circumstances: she was caring for a minor child, had no independent income, and resided at Kendrapada.

Applying the principle that the wife’s convenience generally deserves particular consideration in matrimonial matters, the court was not persuaded to transfer the case.

It also noted that the husband was represented by counsel and need not attend every hearing personally; where his presence was required, he could seek permission to appear virtually.

For effective hearings—including examination and cross-examination—physical attendance would remain necessary if ordered.

It permitted either party to seek virtual appearance when required, subject to the applicable rules, while directing physical attendance for effective hearings when ordered.

The parties were directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments and cooperate, and the Family Court, Kendrapada, was asked to conclude the proceeding at the earliest.

The connected I.A. was also disposed of.