The court prioritizes the convenience of the wife in transfer applications for matrimonial cases while requiring a balanced consideration of both parties' circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

I have heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Udgata, learned counsel for the opposite party through hybrid mode.

2. This transfer application under Section 24 of C.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-wife for transfer of MAT Case No.128 of 2016 filed by the opposite party – husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 5 of the Family Courts (Court) Rules, 2010 in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur, to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur. Vide order dated 14.11.2017, notice had been issued to the sole opp. party and further proceedings in the MAT Case stayed till the next date and the interim order had been extended from time to time. I.A. No.359 of 2021 has been filed for extension of interim order stating therein that six months had elapsed since extension of the order and pursuant to order dated 09.12.2021, mediation had been held in the High Court, Mediation Centre and as per report dated 7.1.2022, both parties were present with their counsel before the Mediator and mediation was unsuccessful as the husband was not agreeable to live with the petitioner-wife.

3. Pleadings are complete as counter, rejoinder affidavit and written notes of submission have been filed by both counsels. The matter is taken up for final disposal on consent of the counsels.

4. The parties have made a number of allegations and counter allegations against each other and I have gone through the same. The allegations/contentions which are relevant for deciding the transfer application are referred to.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has submitted that that marriage of the petitioner and opposite party was solemnized on 17.02.1995 at Gandhinagar, Berhampur as per Hindu Rites and Customs. The opposite party has filed MAT Case No.128 of 2016 in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur, but notice of the same was not served on her. She learnt about the case from a notice under Order 5, Rule 20 of C.P.C., published in the daily newspaper ‘Sambad’ on 26.07.2017. He further submits that the petitioner has appeared once in the case on 21.09.2017 and the case had been adjourned to 18.11.2017 for filing of objection as well as conciliation. By order dated 14.11.2017 further proceedings have been stayed by this Court. He further submits that the distance between Berhampur to Sambalpur is more than 460 kms. and the petitioner is working as a lecturer in the IRPM Department, Berhampur University and is partially hearing disabled and there is nobody else to accompany her to Sambalpur to contest the legal proceedings, as her father is aged about 87 years and their son is presently in the United State for which it would be difficult on her part to go to Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur alone to contest the case. But there should be no difficulty for the opposite party to come to Berhampur as he goes on tours in connection with his job.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies the following judgments in support of his prayer for transfer:-

(i) Tejalben vs. Mihirbhai Bharatbhai Kothari reported in 2016 (II) CLR (SC) 43.

(ii) Bhartiben Ravibhai Rav vs. Ravibhai Govindbhai Rav reported in 2017 (II) CLR (SC) 122.

(iii) Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap reported in 2016 (II) CLR (SC) 478.

(iv) Vanka Neeraja vs. Veerina Sai @ Sairam reported in 2016 (I) CLR (SC) 501.

(v) Sumita Singh vs. Kumar Sanjaya reported in AIR 2002 SC 396.

(vi) Raj Laxmi vs. Dillip Kumar Ghosh reported in AIR 2000 SC 3572