The court emphasized that in domestic violence cases, transfer applications must balance the convenience of both parties, preferentially considering the welfare of the woman, but acknowledging men's burdens as well.

JUDGMENT :

SAVITRI RATHO, J.

1. This transfer application under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Cr.P.C”) has been filed by the petitioner - husband-Pradeep Kumar Das for transfer of D.V. Misc. Case No.130 of 2020 filed by the opposite party (in short “opp.party”) - wife Deeptimayee Das @ Puthal, under Section 12 (2) read with Section 17 (1), Section 18 , Section 19 (1), Section 20 & Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “the DV Act”) in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Balasore, to the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar.

2. I have heard Mr Samir Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner-husband and Mr S.R. Mohapatra learned counsel for the Opposite Party – wife.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is presently posted in Rayagada District working as Deputy Manager of Technical Department in Utkal Alumina International Ltd, a unit of Aditya Birla Group at Kuchia Padar, Nuapada Township, Kasipur, District Rayagada which is about 400 Kms from Bhubaneswar. It would take about 12 to 14 hours for the petitioner to reach from Kasipur Bhubaneswar and 5 to 6 more hours to go to Balasore from Bhubaneswar. The petitioner has further submitted that the opposite party is presently working in Puri as Project Manager in Mecon India Pvt. Ltd. As Puri is only 62 KM away from Bhubaneswar, it will not be inconvenient for the Opp. Party to attend the proceeding at Bhubaneswar whereas the comparative inconvenience faced by the petitioner- husband is more if he is compelled to attend the case at Balasore. He has also submitted that C.P.No. 495 of 2020 and C.P.No. 310 of 2020 (involving the parties) have been transferred to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court Bhadrak pursuant to orders passed in TRP (C) No. 210 of 2020 and TRP (C) No. 138 of 2021, respectively. In support of his submission that women are misusing the leniency being shown to them in matters of transfer and each petition has to be considered on its own merit and inconvenience caused to the husband should also be considered, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anindita Das vs. Srijit Das , (2006) 9 SCC 197 .

4. Instead of filing an objection or a counter affidavit, a date chart/short note of argument accompanied by an affidavit dated 29.08.2022 has been filed on behalf of the opp. party- wife on 29.08.2022, where it has been stated that C.P. No. 495 of 2020 filed by the petitioner – husband for divorce in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court Bhubaneswar and C.P.No. 310 of 2020 filed by the respondent – wife for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, have both been transferred pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court Bhadrak vide order dated 17.02.2021 passed in TRP (C) No. 210 of 2020 and order dated 12.04.2022 passed in TRP (C) No. 310 of 2020 respectively. It has also been averred that CRLMC No 1211 of 2022 filed by the petitioner- husband in order to quash the order of cognizance passed by the learned SDJM Nilgiri in C.T. No. 466 of 2020, arising out of Berhampur P.S. Case No 65 of 2020, is still pending in this Court. CRLMC 1211 of 2022 filed by the petitioner- husband challenging the criminal proceeding in C.T. No. 466 of 2020, arising out Berhampur P.S. Case No 65 of 2020 has been dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 12.07.2022. It is also stated in the written note that the petitioner – husband is working as Deputy Manager at Kas