Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 507 (ORI)

Anita Pattnayak v. Arabinda Sukla

2015-08-26

A.K.RATH

body2015
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. By this application under Section 24 of the C.P.C., the petitioner seeks transfer of C.P. No. 69 of 2013 filed by the opposite party in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jeypore. 2. The marriage between the petitioner and opposite party was solemnized on 8.2.2012 according to Hindu rites and customs. As it appears, there is mistrust and mis-feeling between the parties. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying inter alia for a decree of divorce in the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, which is registered as C.P. No. 69 of 2013. 3. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is residing with her father, who is an old and ailing person, at Sunabeda in the district of Koraput. It is not possible on her part to attend the court at Cuttack, which is 500 kilometers away from her residence. Further she apprehended danger to her life since the family members of the opposite party are influential persons in the locality. With this factual scenario, the application for transfer has been filed. 4. Heard Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party. 5. Mr. Bhokta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is at present residing with her father at Sunabeda, which is near about 500 kilometers away from her residence. Further her father is an ailing person. It is not possible on her part to attend the court at Cuttack. The petitioner apprehends danger to her life since the family members of the opposite party are influential persons in the locality. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the opposite party is serving in Chennai. The family members of the petitioner are highly influential persons in Koraput district and threatening the opposite party and his family members with dire consequences. 6. The submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party that the family members of the petitioner have threatened the opposite party and his family members with dire consequences is difficult to fathom. The opposite party has failed to substantiate the same. There is no material on record to support the stand of the opposite party. 6. The submission of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party that the family members of the petitioner have threatened the opposite party and his family members with dire consequences is difficult to fathom. The opposite party has failed to substantiate the same. There is no material on record to support the stand of the opposite party. 7. The apex Court in the case of Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and another, AIR 2002 SC 396 held that it is the wife's convenience that, therefore, must be looked at. Thus inconvenience of the husband is of no ground to refuse the application for transfer. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the averments made in the application, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be better served, if the case is transferred from the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Koraput at Jeypore. 9. In view of the same, learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack is directed to transmit C.P. No. 69 of 2013 to the court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Koraput at Jeypore, immediately after production of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the TRP(C) is allowed. TRP (C) allowed.