Orissa High Court Reaffirms Settled Law; Directions on Virtual Hearings and Joint Trials — Binding Precedent for Orissa Family Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | TRP(C)/190/2025 of KANCHANSHREE BEHERA @ BINDHANI Vs PRADEEP KUMAR BEHERA |
| CNR | ODHC010444632025 |
| Date of Registration | 30-06-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Odisha |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedent |
| Type of Law | Matrimonial law; Civil Procedure (Section 24 CPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reaffirmed that in matrimonial transfer petitions, the convenience of the wife should generally be prioritized, particularly considering prevailing societal paradigms. Where multiple connected proceedings (raising common questions of fact and law) are pending between the same parties, such as divorce and guardianship matters, they ought to be tried together by the same court to avoid conflicting decisions and multiplicity. The case applies the principle set out by the Supreme Court in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022), emphasizing practical convenience, judicial consistency, and procedural fairness. The judgment also introduces directions for virtual appearance and expeditious joint trial. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment relies on the cardinal principle that ends of justice should guide transfer under Section 24 CPC, taking into account economic, social, and logistical factors — with general preference to the wife’s convenience in marital disputes. It also references the desirability of joint hearings to avoid conflicting judicial outcomes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The wife sought the transfer of a divorce proceeding filed by her husband from the Family Court at Balasore to the Family Court at Baripada, where her own divorce and guardianship cases against the husband were already pending. The wife cited logistical, economic, and personal hardship in attending proceedings at Balasore. The husband, contesting only orally, referenced his own hardships but had not filed for transfer of the wife’s cases. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate/family courts in Odisha |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, matrimonial jurisdictions, especially for transfer under Section 24 CPC |
| Follows | N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that convenience of the wife is the primary consideration in matrimonial transfer petitions, per Supreme Court precedent.
- Clarifies that related matters (divorce, guardianship, etc.) involving the same parties with correlated facts/law should be tried together.
- Directs family courts to utilize available video conferencing facilities for preliminary or procedural hearings, reserving physical appearance for evidence-related dates only.
- Establishes that, where proceedings are consolidated, coordinated hearing schedules should be adopted for efficiency.
- Sets an expectation of expeditious disposal (preferably within six months) when such consolidation occurs.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court began by noting that the petitioner-wife sought transfer due to logistical and economic hardship and to avoid multiplicity and conflicting decisions.
- The husband opposed on the ground of his own inconvenience and single-handed parental responsibilities, but had made no formal transfer application regarding pending Baripada cases.
- The Court set out the settled law from N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1199), emphasizing judicial guidance to prioritize the wife’s convenience in matrimonial matters, considering socioeconomic realities.
- The Court further stated that when multiple proceedings involving common questions of fact and law are pending between the same parties, judicial economy, and consistency require a consolidated hearing before the same judge.
- Applying these principles, and noting the related Baripada proceedings, the Court ordered the transfer from Balasore to Baripada, directed joint listing and hearings, and provided for virtual appearances to minimize hardship.
- Directions were also issued for expeditious trial and notification to relevant courts.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner-wife is a deserted lady, reliant on her parents in Baripada since separation.
- Difficult for her to travel 60 km to Balasore for court dates.
- Both her own divorce and guardianship cases already pending at Baripada, and the husband is already contesting there.
- Relying on Supreme Court precedent, argued for consolidation and wife’s convenience.
Respondent
- The husband is financially strained, already compelled to appear at Baripada in the wife’s cases.
- Has sole responsibility for minor girl child living with him at Balasore, managing without support as his mother is no more.
- Argued hardship if proceedings are transferred to Baripada, since he would have to take his daughter to every court date.
Factual Background
The petitioner-wife sought transfer of a divorce proceeding brought by her husband from the Family Court at Balasore to Baripada, citing hardship and related cases already pending at Baripada—including her own divorce and a guardianship matter. The husband opposed orally, citing financial constraints and his single parenting obligations in Balasore. No formal application by the husband for reciprocal transfer was on record.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure (transfer of suits/proceedings): The Court interpreted this section in light of binding Supreme Court authority, holding that judicial discretion in transfer must serve the ends of justice, especially the convenience of the wife in matrimonial disputes.
- Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 / Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Reference to parallel divorce and guardianship proceedings as justification for consolidation.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate concurring or dissenting opinion present in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- Uses Orissa High Court Video Conferencing for Courts Rules, 2020, and directs family courts to facilitate virtual hearings, reserving physical presence for witness examination and similar effective hearings.
- Orders coordinated scheduling for consolidated cases and expeditious disposal, preferably within six months.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on matrimonial transfer petitions and consolidation of proceedings is reaffirmed and applied.