IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

TRP(C) No.143 of 2025

(An application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984)

Ujesh Gan ….... Petitioner

-Versus-

Rajasmita Gan @ Das ....... Opposite Party

Advocate for the parties

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Mandal,

Advocate

For Opposite Party : None

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

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Date of Hearing & Judgment: 09.01.2026

_____________________________________________________________

S.K. MISHRA, J.

1. This transfer petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-husband, who is the Opposite party in Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025 preferred under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, shortly, ‘the Act, 1955’ for decree of divorce. A prayer has been made to transfer the said Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025 from the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge,

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN

Designation: Secretary

R e a s o n : A u t h e n t ic a ti o n Page 1 of 7

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Date: 10-Jan-2026 14:14:42

Udala to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore on the grounds detailed in the Transfer Petition.

2. Despite notice and giving sufficient opportunity, the Opposite Party-wife goes unrepresented when the matter is called. Hence, as prayed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the transfer petition is taken up for hearing and disposal in absence of the Opposite Party.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the transfer petition, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the Petitioner- husband has preferred C.P. No.62 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right, which is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. The Opposite Party-wife is yet to appear in the said proceeding though service of notice was held to be sufficient by the learned Court below.

5. He further submits, the Petitioner is working as a delivery boy in a courier company. He is not affluent to bear the legal expenses. The distance from Balasore to Udala is near about 70 K.M. It would not be possible on his part to attend the Court proceeding on each date at Udala. Since the parents of the Petitioner are old and ailing, being the only son, the Petitioner is looking after them so also their property. That apart, his minor son, who is around 9 years old, is studying in Std.III in St. Xavier English Medium School, Chandipur, Balasore and is staying with the Petitioner as well as his grandparents.

6. From the conduct of the Opposite Party-wife, who is deserted by the Petitioner, it can be well presumed that because of her financial hardship, she is unable to appear in C.P. No.62 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore so also before this Court.

7. Law is well settled that, while dealing with the application for transfer of matrimonial proceedings, the Court has to examine various factors and the most important factor is convenience of wife. Law is further well settled that when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, both the proceedings should be tried together.

8. At this juncture, it would be apt to deal with the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1199 (N.C.V. Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha), wherein it was 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 pa