Procedural irregularities creating a bona fide apprehension of injustice justify transferring matrimonial proceedings.

The Opposite Party-husband instituted C.P. No. 372 of 2024 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar.

His evidence as P.W.1 was recorded on 29 April 2025, but after several adjournments his evidence was closed on 25 March 2026.

Subsequently, an application for recall and permission to further cross-examine P.W.1 was allowed, and the matter was posted for cross-examination on 16 May 2026 and thereafter on 28 July 2026.

On 28 July 2026, the present Petitioner-wife was stated to have been present and to have filed Hazira.

A time petition was also filed on behalf of her counsel, citing the illness and injury of the conducting Senior Counsel.

The Family Court nevertheless rejected the adjournment request, declined further cross-examination of P.W.1, and closed the husband’s evidence.

On 14 August 2026, the Petitioner filed three applications, including an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of P.W.1, but the proceeding was posted for the Petitioner’s evidence without first deciding the pending applications.

The Petitioner therefore sought transfer of C.P. No. 372 of 2024 from Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar to Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, alleging inconsistencies in the order sheets and apprehending that she might not receive justice before the original court.

1. Whether, in view of the discrepancies in the order sheets, rejection of the Petitioner’s adjournment request despite her asserted presence and the medical condition of her counsel, and the failure to decide her pending applications, C.P. No. 372 of 2024 should be transferred to another Family Court?

2. Whether the transfer petition could be finally disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the Opposite Party, when the proposed transferee court was situated in the same premises and the transfer was considered necessary to avoid delay?

The Court exercised its transfer jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure to secure a fair and orderly adjudication; although the judgment does not expressly identify the statutory provision, the proceeding was presented as a transfer petition.

The Court also considered the procedural safeguard embodied in Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, under which the court may recall a witness, particularly in the context of the Petitioner’s pending application to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination.

The Court applied the principles of procedural fairness, meaningful opportunity to contest, and avoidance of prejudice caused by deciding or advancing the proceeding while material applications remained pending.

The underlying matrimonial proceeding had been instituted under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, though that provision was relevant only to the background facts and not to the determination of the transfer request.

The Court found material inconsistencies between the Family Court’s report and the certified order dated 28 July 2026: the order recorded the Petitioner’s presence and filing of Hazira, while also stating that no one was present when the adjournment request was considered.

The Court also took note of the medical documents supporting the asserted illness and injury of the conducting Senior Counsel.

Further, although the Petitioner had filed applications on 14 August 2026, including a recall application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, the Family Court posted the matter for her evidence without first considering those applications.

In these circumstances, the Court held that the transfer request required consideration and that transfer to Family Court-II, located in the same premises, would promote fairness and avoid further delay.

It accordingly considered it appropriate to dispose of the matter at the admission stage without issuing notice to the Opposite Party.

Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar was directed to transmit the record in C.P. No. 372 of 2024 to Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar preferably within seven days of production of the certified judgment.

Family Court-II was directed to re-register the case if necessary and decide all pending applications after giving both parties due opportunity, before proceeding with the matrimonial case on merits.

Both parties were directed to ascertain the next date and purpose of listing, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and cooperate for early disposal of the proceeding.