IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK TRP(C) No. 31 of 2026 Gayatri Mohanty … ... Petitioner -Versus-

Baibhav Ranjan Patra ... … Opposite Party Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. S.S.Chaini, Advocate For Opp. Party:

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Decided on : 18th March, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The petitioner-wife in the marriage is before this Court seeking transfer of the C.P. No. 585 of 2025 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore. The said C.P. has been filed by the husband in the marriage under sections 11 & 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a declaratory relief i.e. “so-called marriage dated 24.11.2024 between the petitioner and the respondent-wife” as alleged and claimed by the respondent to be declared as nullity.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-wife stays with her parents at Bhadrak after her marriage ran into rough weather. The address has also been indicated in the cause title of the C.P. It is further submitted that the husband-petitioner before the learned trial court does not stay within the jurisdiction of the said court and the said court lacks territorial jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard extensively.

Learned counsel relies on Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act to submit that the matrimonial proceeding initiated by the husband in the marriage seeking restitution of conjugal rights could not have been initiated before the learned Judge Family Court, Balasore, in view of the provisions contained in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act. For convenience of reference, the said Section is reproduced herein:-

“CHAPTER V JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE [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 solemnized, 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 [(iii-a) 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. It is submitted that none of the four conditions specified in Section 19 as quoted above are satisfied in case of the opposite party, who has filed the C.P. at Balasore for the Family Court, to have territorial jurisdiction.

5. In the context of the submissions made, the learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to go through the copy of the petition filed before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, wherein address of the petitioner has been given in the cause title as “Sri Baibhab Ranjan Patra, aged about 27 years, S/o Sri Goura Chandra Patra, At Sorishakotha, P.O. Palasia, P.S. Baisinga, Dist. Mayurbhanj, at present At Haladia, P.O. Alada, P.S. Remuna, Dist. Balasore.” Further, Paragraphs-7(xi), (xvi)

and 15 of the petition are reproduced herein:

“7(xi). That, though the affidavit shows that, the Village of the respondent is “Gopdalakhs” but the stamp paper shows that the Village of the respondent is at Bideipur. Village Godalakhs and Village Bideipur are different Villages.

xxx xxx xxx

7(xvi) That, the C.P. also has been filed within one year from dtd. 24.11.2024 and on dtd. 13.09.2024 when the fraud discovered for the first time as committed by the respondent.

So the so-called marriage between the petitioner and the respondent as alleged by the respondent is void on the gr