IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

TRP(C) No.168 of 2025

Susmita Ashe @ Sharma ….... Petitioner

-Versus-

Milind Sharma ....... Opposite Party

Advocate for the parties

For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Khuntia,

Advocate

For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Mishra,

Advocate

...................

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 01.09.2025

_____________________________________________________________

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. This transfer petition has been filed by the Petitioner-wife for transfer of proceeding in C.P. No.837 of 2024 preferred by the Opposite Party-husband, now pending

grounds detailed in the Transfer Petition.

2. Though the Opposite Party has appeared in the present transfer petition, no written objection has been filed till date opposing to such prayer for transfer. However, the transfer petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission on the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.

4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-wife submits, after her desertion, the Petitioner is staying with her parents at Balasore. She has no source of income to maintain her livelihood so also to attend the day to day proceeding in C.P. No.837 of 2024, now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court (I), Bhubaneswar. She is also having a minor child of 8 years old. Hence, it would be difficult on her part to attend the proceeding at Bhubaneswar. That apart, she has filed Cr.P. No.25 of 2025 for maintenance, which is now Balasore and being noticed, the present Opposite Party has appeared in the said case at Balasore.

5. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party orally opposes to such prayer for transfer on the ground that the application for divorce has been filed by his client on the ground of adultery. The Petitioner, on her own, has left the Opposite Party-husband and to further harass his client, she has filed an application for maintenance vide Cr.P. No.25 of 2025 at Balasore. He further submits, his client is at present serving in Lalchnd Jewellers, as Salesman in Bhubaneswar .It would be difficult on his part to take leave on each and every date to attend the proceeding in C.P. No.837 of 2024, if it is transferred to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, as prayed by the Petitioner.

6. Law is well settled that while dealing with transfer petitions in matrimonial cases, convenience of the wife must be looked at and proceedings involving common question of fact and law to be tried together. In N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199, the Supreme Court held as follows:

“9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters, wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer.”

10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions.” (Emphasis supplied)

7. In view of the reasons detailed in the transfer petition so also submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and