IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK TRP(C) No.377 of 2024 Preeti Bai …. Petitioner Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Advocate along with Ms. Shreya Pattanaik, Advocate -versus-

Jagdish Chandra Jena …. Opposite Party Mr. Bigyan Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sudeepta Kumar Singh, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER

08. 16.04.2025 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. This petition has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for transfer of MAT Case No.13 of 2023 filed under Section 13(1)(A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Opposite Party- husband for dissolution of marriage, which is stated to be pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Talcher to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-wife is now staying in Bhubaneswar for higher studies and facing difficult to travel from Bhubaneswar to Talcher to attend the Court proceedings.

3.1. He further submitted that the Opposite Party-husband is now posted and working in Cuttack for which it would be convenient for transfer of MAT Case No.13 of 2023 from the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Talcher to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

4. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party vehemently opposing the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that since there are two other cases, i.e., D.V. Case No.67 of 2022 and G.R. Case No.468 of 2022 pending before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Talcher, no necessity arises for transfer of this MAT Case No.13 of 2023, pending before the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Talcher to the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

4.1. He, relying on Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, submitted that even though power exists for transfer, there is no justification to exercise such power at the askance of the petitioner.

The said Section is quoted hereunder:-

“19. Court to which petition shall be presented.-

Every petition under this Act shall be presented to the district court within the local limits of whose ordinary original civil jurisdiction—

(i) the marriage was solemnised, Or (ii) the respondent, at the time of the presentation of the petition, resides, Or (iii) the parties to the marriage last resided together, Or (iiia) in case the wife is the petitioner, where she is residing on the date of presentation of the petition, or (iv) the petitioner is residing at the time of the presentation of the petition, in a case where the respondent is, at that time, residing outside the territories to which this Act extends, or has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of him if he were alive.”

4.2. He submitted that mere staying at a particular place for period would not determine the jurisdiction of the court to proceed with the trial, but it is the residence which determines cause of action. The trial is in progress and examination of the Opposite Party-husband was going on. In the midst of the examination and the Petitioner had the opportunity to cross-examination. But at that juncture, the petitioner having approached this Court, by virtue of interim orders, the matter has been adjourned.

5. Strongly objecting to the contentions of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party, learned counsel for the Petitioner drew attention of this Court to para-8 of the rejoinder affidavit submitted that the Petitioner filed Domestic Violence bearing DV Case No.67 of 2022, which is pending before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher but the Opposite Party had filed CRLMC No.3263 of 2024 before this Court challenging the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher for quashing of e