Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SAVITRI RATHO
Anuva Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Biswajit Mishra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer application for family court case (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations in transfer application context (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. opposition and counter-arguments for transfer (Para 6) |
| 4. court's considerations for transfer applications (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. balancing convenience in transfer cases (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. order for case transfer and video conferencing (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
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.
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.
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
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
