p. 1 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, Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 10-Jan-2026 14:14:42 Signature Not Verified p. 2 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 p. 3 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:- p. 4 “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 socioeconomic 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) 9. As the Opposite Party-wife has preferred Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025 under Section 13(1) of the Act, 1955 for decree of divorce whereas, the Petitioner-husband has preferred C.P. No.62 of 2025 under Section 9 of the said Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right, this Court is of the view p. 5 that both the said proceedings should be tried together. This Court is of further view that instead of transferring Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025 from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Udala to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, it would be advisable to transfer the proceeding in C.P. No.62 of 2025 to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Udala for analogous hearing with Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025. Hence, the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore is directed to transmit the case record in C.P. No.62 of 2025 to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala at the earliest, preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of certified copy of this Judgment. 10. On receiving the case record in C.P. No.62 of 2025 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala shall re-register the said case, if so required, and proceed further in accordance with law giving due opportunity to both the parties. 11. Since Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025, at the instance of the Opposite Party-wife, is pending before the same Court and the said suit is between the same parties, which raise common question of fact and law, and the decisions in Matrimonial Suit No.08 of 2025 and C.P. No.62 of 2025 are interdependent, it is p. 6 desirable that both MAT Suit No.08 of 2025 and C.P. No.62 of 2025 be tried together. 12. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala is requested to explore the facilities of Video Conferencing available in the said Court and permit the parties to appear before him through virtual mode following due procedure, as prescribed under the Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020. However, on the dates of effective hearing i.e. for examination and cross-examination of witnesses and other purposes, for which their presence may be required by the Court and if it is so ordered, the parties shall remain physically present before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala. 13. To avoid delay and notice, the parties are directed to make a query themselves or through their Counsel regarding the date and purpose of posting of C.P. No.62 of 2025 and participate in the proceeding in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala. They are further directed not to ask for unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala, who shall do well to conclude both the proceedings in MAT Suit No.08 of 2025 and C.P. No.62 of 2025 at the earliest. Page 7 of 7 14. With the said observation and direction, the transfer petition stands disposed of. 15. Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore so also the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udala for compliance. 16. Urgent certified copy be granted on proper application as per rules. …….…………………… S.K. MISHRA, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Dated, the 9th January, 2026/ Prasant