Related matrimonial proceedings must be tried together to avoid conflicting judgments.

The wife sought transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the husband’s divorce proceeding, C.P. No. 162 of 2025, from the Family Court, Nayagarh, to the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar.

Although a counter-affidavit opposing transfer was on record, the husband filed an affidavit stating that he had no objection; he appeared virtually and confirmed that he had sworn it.

He also asked that the divorce proceeding be tried together with the wife’s restitution-of-conjugal-rights proceeding, C.P. No. 134 of 2026, pending before the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar.

1. Whether the husband’s divorce proceeding should be transferred from the Family Court, Nayagarh, to the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar, in light of the parties’ submissions and the husband’s no-objection.

2. Whether the transferred divorce proceeding and the wife’s restitution-of-conjugal-rights proceeding should be tried together to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments.

Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the High Court to transfer proceedings between competent courts.

The proceedings referenced arose under Sections 13(1) and 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, respectively, for divorce and restitution of conjugal rights.

The Court also relied on the case-management consideration that related proceedings should be tried together where doing so may avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judgments.

The Court considered the pleadings, the parties’ submissions, and the husband’s confirmed no-objection to transfer, and found those circumstances sufficient to allow the wife’s application.

Because the husband’s divorce case and the wife’s restitution petition were both pending before different Family Courts, the Court directed that they be tried together to reduce the risk of duplicated proceedings and inconsistent outcomes.

The Family Court, Nayagarh, was directed to transmit C.P. No. 162 of 2025 to the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar, preferably within seven days after production of a certified copy; that court was directed to re-register the case if necessary, proceed according to law, and try it together with C.P. No. 134 of 2026.

The Court also addressed possible virtual appearances, required physical attendance for effective hearings when ordered, and directed the parties to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.

The interim order was vacated and the related interlocutory application disposed of.