Orissa HC Transfers Husband’s Divorce Case To Jajpur, Directs Joint Trial With Wife’s Restitution Petition

In brief

The question

1. Whether CP No. 01 of 2026 should be transferred from the Family Court, Cuttack, to the Family Court, Jajpur, having regard to the wife’s convenience and the husband’s lack of objection.

The court held

The transfer petition was allowed, and the Family Court, Cuttack, was directed to transmit CP No. 01 of 2026 to the Family Court, Jajpur, preferably within seven days of production of a certified copy.

It also directed

The Jajpur court was directed to proceed in accordance with law and to try CP No. 01 of 2026 together with CP No. 108 of 2026.

The Court also permitted appearance by video conference with the court’s permission, while requiring physical attendance for effective hearings when ordered; it directed the parties to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The interim order was vacated, and the transfer petition was disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner-wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of CP No. 01 of 2026 from the Family Court, Cuttack, to the Family Court, Jajpur.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

The husband appeared but filed no written objection; his counsel stated that he had no objection to transfer, noting that two other proceedings between the parties were pending at Jajpur.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–3

The Court recorded that CP No. 108 of 2026, the wife’s petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was pending at Jajpur and treated the proceedings as raising common questions warranting joint trial.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4, 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether CP No. 01 of 2026 should be transferred from the Family Court, Cuttack, to the Family Court, Jajpur, having regard to the wife’s convenience and the husband’s lack of objection.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

ii.2. Whether CP No. 01 of 2026 and CP No. 108 of 2026 should be tried together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 4, 8

03Law Applied

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the Court to transfer proceedings where the ends of justice so require.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

In matrimonial transfer matters, the wife’s convenience is generally a relevant consideration.

p. 3 · ¶ 4

Further, where proceedings between the same parties in different courts raise common questions of fact or law and their outcomes are interdependent, they should preferably be tried together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4

The Court relied on N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4

The proceedings were identified as arising under Sections 9 and 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 9 Section 13

04Reasoning

The Court granted transfer in light of the husband’s express lack of objection and the settled principles governing matrimonial transfers.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–5, 8

It also considered that the related proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was already pending before the Family Court, Jajpur, and that trying both proceedings there would reduce the risk of duplicated consideration and inconsistent decisions.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–5, 8