01Facts
The wife, who was the opposite party in C.P. No. 370 of 2023 pending before the Family Court, Puri, petitioned under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to transfer the matrimonial proceeding to the Family Court, Khordha.
p. 1 · ¶ 1The husband did not oppose transfer; his counsel stated that he was serving in the Indian Army in Uttarakhand and requested permission for virtual appearances if the case were transferred, given the difficulty of taking frequent leave.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2, 4The High Court considered the petition at the admission stage with the parties’ consent.
p. 2 · ¶ 202Issues
i.Whether the matrimonial proceeding in C.P. No. 370 of 2023 should be transferred from the Family Court, Puri, to the Family Court, Khordha, in light of the circumstances and the wife’s convenience.
pp. 1, 3–4 · ¶ 1, 5, 7ii.Whether the parties could be permitted to appear virtually, subject to the Family Court’s permission and requirements for physical attendance.
pp. 3–6 · ¶ 4, 6, 1003Law Applied
Section 24 CPC empowers the High Court to transfer a suit or proceeding where the ends of justice so require.
p. 3 · ¶ 5In matrimonial transfer matters, courts should consider the parties’ economic circumstances, social position, behaviour, standard of living, and means of livelihood; in the prevailing socio-economic context, the wife’s convenience generally warrants particular consideration (N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199).
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5The Court also relied on Chittaranjan Padhiary v. Jasmin Das, 2025 Live Law (Ori) 91, concerning virtual appearances for parties stationed or serving in different places.
p. 4 · ¶ 6Virtual appearances are subject to the concerned court’s permission and the applicable High Court of Orissa and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025; physical attendance may be required for effective hearings.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 24
04Reasoning
The husband did not oppose transfer, and the Court considered the pleadings, documents, submissions, and the settled principle that the wife’s convenience generally receives particular weight in matrimonial transfer applications.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 2, 4–7It therefore found transfer to Khordha appropriate.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 5, 7In addressing the husband’s service-related difficulty, the Court balanced access to the proceedings with the need for effective hearings: it permitted either party to seek virtual attendance with the Family Court’s permission, while requiring physical presence when ordered for witness examination, cross-examination, or other purposes.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 1005Holding
The transfer petition was allowed.
p. 4 · ¶ 8The Family Court, Puri, was directed to transmit the record of C.P. No. 370 of 2023 to the Family Court, Khordha, preferably within seven days after production of a certified copy of the judgment; the Khordha court was directed to proceed in accordance with law and endeavour to dispose of the case promptly.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–9The parties may appear virtually with the Family Court’s permission, but must attend physically when required for effective hearings or otherwise ordered.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 10Both parties were directed to ascertain the case schedule, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and cooperate in expeditious disposal.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11–12Original Court PDF
SAUDAMINI BEHERAvsACHYUTA BEHERA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
