p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK TRP(C) No.18 of 2025 Gayatri Priyadarsini Behera …. Petitioner Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Bhaskar Chandra Behera …. Opp. Party Mr. A. Brahmachari, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 17.02.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 03. 1. The matter is listed for admission. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has a minor child, she stays with her parents at Bhubaneswar and it would be convenient for her to prosecute the matter at Bhubaneswar. 3. In view of the fact that Cuttack and Bhubaneswar are twin contiguous cities the location of two courts being around 25-35 kms. apart, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked how appearing at the Court at Bhubaneswar which is also overburdened with matrimonial cases compared to the Court of the Family p. 2 Court at Cuttack (as the statistics indicates) would help the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had initiated Cr.P. No.255 of 2022 seeking maintenance U/s.125 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by pari materia provision contained in Section 144 of BNSS, 2023) at Bhubaneswar. 4. In considered opinion of this Court having a minor child if the petitioner wants to leave the child for attending the matter at Bhubaneswar she has to leave the child in care of someone like her parents or relative. The location of the Courts not being far from each other, distance between Courts and place of residence of petitioner would not come to play for deciding whether it would be convenient to prosecute the matter at Cuttack or Bhubaneswar Court. 5. It has also to be noticed that the C.P. is of the year 2024 and if it is transferred to Bhubaneswar, it would be renumbered as a matter of 2026. On being asked, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no instruction regarding the status of the matter at present at what stage the trial is as it has been stayed by the interim order of this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the Cr.P. No.255 of 2022, initiated U/s.125 Cr.P.C., has been finally disposed of. The petitioner herself is a Government Servant. As directed p. 3 by the learned Judge, Family Court in the said Cr.P. salary of the opposite party has been attached for payment of maintenance. Sum of Rs.6,000/- is being regularly deducted from the salary and credited to the account of the petitioner. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances indicated above, this Court is of the view that the present case is not a fit case, where transferring the matter from Family Court, Cuttack to Family Court, Bhubaneswar would enure to the benefit of the petitioner-wife. The order directing payment of maintenance has taken care of, the needs of the wife, who is the opposite party in the C.P. No.896 of 2024. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, if required shall avail the facility of Information and Communication Technology (ICT)/digital facility. It is directed that the parties to the litigation (before the learned Court in seisin of C.P. No.896 of 2024), if so advised shall make application before the learned Court for extending the facility of ICT such as virtual hearing, deposition etc. Upon making such application, learned court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law extending the facility of ICT. 9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. p. 4 It is further directed that the parties shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of C.P. No.896 of 2024. The interim order dated 22.01.2025 stands vacated. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Radha