In matrimonial disputes, the convenience of the wife is the primary consideration, and cases should be consolidated for hearing together to avoid conflicting judgments.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. TRP(C) No.11 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-wife for transfer of C.P. No.207 of 2024, which has been filed by the Opposite Party-husband before the learned Judge, Family Court Baripada under Section 13(i)(ia) of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 for divorce, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, whereas, TRPCRL No.15 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-husband for transfer of D.V. Misc. Case No.214 of 2024, which has been filed by the Opposite Party-wife under Section 12 of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore, to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Baripada. TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 has also been filed by the Petitioner-husband for transfer of proceeding in Cr.P. No.382 of 2024, which has been filed by the Opposite Party-wife under Section 144 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for maintenance before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada. Similarly, TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-husband for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.761 of 2024 initiated by the Opposite Party-wife under Section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT for restitution of conjugal rights before the Judge, Family Court, Balasore, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada.

2. Since the issue involved in all the transfer petitions are pertaining to transfer of various matrimonial proceedings initiated either at the instance of the wife or husband, on consent of learned Counsel for the parties, all the transfer petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal together at the stage of admission.

3. So far as transfer petitions i.e. TRPCRL No.15 of 2025, TRPCRL No.16 of 2025 and TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 are concerned, as it seems from the pleadings made in the said transfer petitions, the grounds urged in all the said applications are same.

4. Mr. Jena, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-husband, reiterating the grounds urged in the aforesaid transfer petitions submits, the distance from Balasore to Baripada is only 50 KMs., having well communication facility. The Opposite Party-wife is regularly attending her office at Baripada, for which, she will never feel any inconvenience, if the proceedings initiated by her are transferred from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada. Mr. Jena further submits, the Opposite Party-wife is contesting one of the cases, i.e. C.P. No.207 of 2024, at Baripada.

5. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife in the aforesaid three transfer petitions submits, his client is no more serving in Baripada. She has left the said job since long, for which, being directed by this Court, an Affidavit has been filed in TRP(C) No.40 of 2025 enclosing thereto documentary evidence regarding her present place of working.

6. Drawing attention of this Court to the documents appended to the said Affidavit, Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-wife submits, his client is at present working as a Social Worker in an Old Age home at Balasore and getting an honorarium of Rs.6,000/- per month with effect from 01.01.2025 to maintain her livelihood after her desertion. Drawing attention towards the averments made in the said Affidavit, Mr. Mishra further submits, the Opposite Party-wife was staying with her husband in the matrimonial house at Baripada. Then she was working as Manager in a Specialized Adoption Agency under the NGO, Rural Development Action Cell at Palabania, Baripada in the district of Mayurbhanj. Howe