Transfer denied; husband may appear virtually except when physical presence is required for effective hearings.

The Petitioner-Husband sought transfer under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), read with Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, of Crl. Misc. Case No. 133 of 2025, pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Athmallik, Angul, to the Family Court, Angul.

The Opposite Party-Wife had instituted the proceeding under Section 144 BNSS for maintenance before the Athmallik court.

The husband contended that travelling approximately 200 kilometres to attend the proceedings would be difficult due to financial constraints, family problems, and the illness of his aged, paralysed mother.

The wife was residing at her paternal home in Boinda, Angul district, and had initiated the maintenance proceeding at Athmallik for her convenience.

The husband had already appeared before the trial court and filed his show-cause statement.

Whether the maintenance proceeding instituted by the wife before the S.D.J.M., Athmallik, should be transferred to the Family Court, Angul on account of the husband’s stated difficulty in travelling and participating in the proceedings.

Whether an alternative arrangement permitting the husband to participate through virtual mode could adequately address his difficulty without transferring the proceeding.

The Court applied Section 447 BNSS and Section 407 Cr.P.C., which empower the High Court to transfer criminal proceedings where the interests of justice so require.

It also considered Section 144 BNSS, under which the wife had initiated proceedings for maintenance.

The Court applied the principle that a deserted wife seeking maintenance may institute or pursue proceedings at a place convenient to her, and that the husband’s travel-related inconvenience, by itself, did not justify transfer in the circumstances of the case.

The Court further relied on the availability of virtual hearings under the “High Court of Orissa and District Courts Use of Electronic Communication and Audio-Video Electronic Means Rules, 2025” as a means of facilitating the husband’s participation.

Although the Court acknowledged the husband’s asserted difficulties arising from distance, income, and his mother’s medical condition, it found that the wife, described as a deserted woman, had chosen the Athmallik court for her convenience and was residing within Angul district.

Since the husband had already appeared and filed his show cause, and no sufficient ground for transfer was established, the Court declined to exercise its transfer jurisdiction.

To balance the parties’ respective difficulties, it granted the husband liberty to seek permission from the trial court to appear through video conference on dates when physical attendance was difficult.

The Court clarified that physical presence could still be required for effective hearings, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses.

The husband was permitted to apply before the S.D.J.M., Athmallik, for appearance through virtual mode, subject to the court’s permission and the applicable electronic-hearing rules.

He and his witnesses were required to appear physically whenever ordered, particularly for examination, cross-examination, or other effective hearings.

Both parties were directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments and to cooperate in expeditious disposal of the maintenance proceeding, preferably by the end of March 2027.

A copy of the judgment was directed to be communicated urgently to the trial court.