Wife’s Bhubaneswar Job, Ailing Parents And Daughter’s Schooling: Orissa HC Transfers Divorce And Restitution Cases There

The wife sought transfer under Section 24 CPC of the husband’s divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and her own petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9, from the Family Court, Berhampur, to the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar.

She submitted that she was employed in Bhubaneswar, lived with her aged and ailing parents, and cared for their four-year-old daughter, who attended school there; she argued that attending proceedings in Berhampur would cause hardship and that transfer would not prejudice the husband, who resided in Bengaluru.

The husband opposed transfer, relying on the delay in filing and the absence of documentary proof of the wife’s employment and the child’s schooling.

Section 24 CPC empowers the court to transfer proceedings where the ends of justice require it.

In matrimonial transfer applications, the court should consider the circumstances and convenience of both parties; in the prevailing socio-economic context, the wife’s convenience is generally an important consideration, though not invariably the sole determinant (N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199).

Where proceedings between the same parties involve common or interdependent issues, trying them together may avoid multiplicity and inconsistent decisions.

Guda Vijayalakshmi v. Guda Ramchandra Sekhara Sastry, (1981) 2 SCC 646, supports bringing closely connected matrimonial proceedings together and confirms that Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act does not exclude the broader power to transfer or consolidate proceedings where justice requires.

The Court considered the wife’s employment and residence in Bhubaneswar, her responsibility for her minor daughter, and her support for aged and ailing parents to be circumstances that, taken together, justified transfer. The husband’s residence in Bengaluru meant that transfer to Bhubaneswar would cause him no undue prejudice.

The Court held that the delay in applying and the asserted lack of documentary evidence did not outweigh the circumstances supporting transfer.

Because the divorce and restitution petitions involved the same parties and connected matrimonial issues, the Court also directed that they be tried together to reduce duplication and the risk of conflicting judgments.

The Family Court, Berhampur, was directed to transmit the two case records to the Family Court-I, Bhubaneswar, preferably within seven days of production of the certified judgment; the Bhubaneswar court was directed to proceed with both matters and try them together, using common evidence where legally permissible.

The parties may seek permission to appear virtually when necessary, but must attend physically when required for effective hearings, including witness examination and cross-examination.

The Court directed the parties to avoid unnecessary adjournments and asked the Family Court to endeavour to conclude the proceedings by the end of June 2027, subject to any legal impediment.