Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 640

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.
Tejaswari Muduli - Petitioner
Versus
Himanshu Sekhar Mohanty – Respondent
TRP(C) No.169 of 2025
Decided On : 07-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Pradhan Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. B. Sahoo Advocate

In matrimonial transfer cases, the convenience and safety of the wife are paramount, often necessitating the transfer of proceedings to a nearby location to facilitate fair access to justice.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 9; Code of Civil Procedure - Section 24 - Transfer of matrimonial proceedings - Transfer petition filed by wife for transferring MAT Case No.52 of 2024 from Talcher to Kuchinda due to difficulties faced in attending court - Wife's status as a deserted woman with a minor child and lack of income considered a priority - Previous threats reported by the wife influence decision for transfer. (Paras 1, 5, 9, 15)

(B) Convenience of Wife - The paramount consideration in transfer petitions involving matrimonial disputes is the convenience of the wife, balancing economic and social factors. (Paras 7, 9)

(C) Judicial Efficiency - When multiple proceedings are ongoing concerning the same parties, consolidation of trials is preferred to avoid conflicting judgments. (Para 9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner-wife sought transfer of her husband’s MAT case citing lack of income, dependency on father, and a direct threat received from the husband.

Issues: The main issue was whether the transfer request should be granted, considering the wife’s convenience and security concerns.

Findings of Court:
Transfer of MAT Case No.52 of 2024 from Talcher to Kuchinda allowed due to the petitioner’s circumstances and threats received.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized prioritizing the convenience and safety of the wife in matters of matrimonial disputes when deciding on transfers.

Result: Transfer petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. transfer petition details and mediation outcomes. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner's circumstances and travel difficulties. (Para 5)
3. opposing arguments and lack of documentary evidence. (Para 6)
4. legal standards for transfer in matrimonial cases. (Para 7 , 8)
5. decision to grant transfer and procedural directives. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. final administrative directives and conclusion. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. This transfer petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-Wife for transfer of proceeding in MAT Case No.52 of 2024 preferred by the Opposite Party-Husband under section 9 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955, now pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Talcher, to the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Kuchinda in the district of Sambalpur, on the grounds detailed in the transfer petition.

2. Though, being suggested by the learned Counsel for the Parties, vide order dated 19.09.2025, parties were directed to appear before the Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Sambalpur for mediation, as per the report submitted by the Secretary-cum-Coordinator, District Mediation Centre, Sambalpur vide letter no.1509 dated 15.10.2025, the mediation became unsuccessful and failed.

3. Hence, on consent of the learned Counsel for the Parties, the transfer petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission, permitting the Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-Husband to have his oral objections, if any, to the prayer made in the transfer petition.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.

5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner-Wife is a deserted lady having no source of income. After her desertion, she is dependent on her father. At present she is staying at Kuchinda with her minor son, who is around six years old.

5.1. That apart, the distance from Kuchinda to Talcher would be around 110 K.Ms. It would be difficult on her part to travel such a long distance to attend the Court proceeding on each and every date before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Talcher in MAT Case No.52 of 2024.

5.2. Drawing attention of this Court to para 6 of the transfer petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, though the Petitioner has appeared on 21.02.2025 along with her advocate, but on the said date she received a direct threat from the Opposite Party in the Court premises. Thereafter, she thought it prudent not to appear in MAT Case No.52 of 2024, as it would be very risky on her part to attend the Court proceeding at Talcher.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party opposes to the said prayer for transfer stating that being noticed, she has already appeared in MAT Case No.52 of 2024 by engaging a lawyer, who is taking steps in the said case before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Talcher.

6.1. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party further submits, such allegation of receiving threat from his client on 21.02.2025 is incorrect. The Petitioner could have brought the said fact to the notice of the leaned Court at Talcher or could have lodged an FIR immediately before the local Police Station at Talcher. No documentary proof has been annexed to the transfer petition to demonstrate before this Court that the said allegation is true.

7. Law is well settled that, while dealing with the application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the Court has to examine various factors and most important factor is the convenience of wife.

8. At this juncture, it would be apt to deal with the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 (N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha), wherein it was held as follows:-

“8. It is not disputed that the appellant is the resident of Chennai and that the appellant’s husband-respondent herein is the resident of Vellore and he is employed. The appellant who is 21 years old does not have any s