The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the residence of the parties and the inconvenience faced by each party in determining the transfer of cases under the DV Act and Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

I have heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Samal, learned counsel for the opp. party no.1.

2. This transfer application under section 407 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-husband Anshuman Pradhan for transfer of D.V. Case No.38 of 2022 filed by the opp. party No.1 wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short “DV Act”) in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Talcher, Angul to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack.

3. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that the petitioner had earlier filed MAT Case No.125 of 2021 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talcher for a decree of divorce. After receiving notice in the said case, TRP(C) No.183 of 2021 was filed by the opp. party No.1-wife in this Court for transfer of the MAT case to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. By order dated 08.06.2021, this Court has allowed the prayer taking note of her submission that she was staying in Chowdwar with her widow mother and brother and is dependent on them and it would be difficult for her to move 150 K.Ms. to Talcher to attend the case. But in fact the petitioner is staying in Talcher by forcibly occupying one room of the house where the petitioner and his parents were staying. He further submits that although she had plans of moving to Talcher, the opp. party No.1 had made false averments and submissions in TRP (C) No.183 of 2021 in order to cause inconvenience and harassment to the petitioner. After transfer, the case has been re-registered and numbered as C.P. No.390 of 2021 in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court Cuttack. The case has been listed on a number of occasions, but the opp. party No.1 has remained absent on many dates for which the case is getting adjourned causing difficulty and inconvenience to the petitioner as he has also to appear and contest the DV case before the S.D.J.M., Talcher. As it would be convenient if both the cases are taken up at one place, so the DV Case should be transferred to the Court of the SDJM Cuttack. In the alternative, the Civil Proceeding No. 390 of 2021 should be retransferred to Talcher.

4. Mr. Sarat Chandra Samal, learned counsel and his associate have appeared for the opposite party no.1-wife waiving notice. A counter affidavit has been filed by her and copy of the same has been served on learned counsel for the petitioner . This objection has been sworn before Sri B.K. Nayak, Notary Cuttack Town on 28.06.2022. But instead of filing the certified copy of the order dated 21.07.2022 in C.P. No.390 of 2021 as undertaken on 25.07.2022, the learned counsel for the opp. party No.1 on 28.07.2022 has filed the true copy of the report of the Counselor, Family Court Cuttack alongwith citations. He has submitted that the opp. party No.1 has not made any false averments or submissions in the transfer application filed by her earlier and she not filed the DV case in Talcher to harass the petitioner but because she is interested for reunification. In the counter affidavit it has been interalia stated that at the time of filing of TRP(C) No. 183 of 2021, she has spent five six months phase wise in Choudwar and she and her daughter were staying there with her widow mother and brother. But after that, she has moved to Talcher and is staying in her in laws house with her daughter, as her mother and brother are now residing in Bangalore where he is working and it would have been cumbersome and hazardous for her to reside in her parental house with her young daughter. It has been further averred that she is residing in her in laws house since 29.12.2021 till date and four sessions of counselling have been done after which the concerned counselor has come to the conclusion that the opp. party is interested for re-unification and one more home visit was necessary and on. 21.07.2022, the conciliation process has been closed basing on the report of th