The Orissa High Court has recognized that the logistical and financial hardship faced by a deserted wife, with no independent income and residing over 100 kilometers from the forum, justifies the transfer of ongoing matrimonial proceedings to a nearby court. This decision prioritizes access to justice over procedural convenience, setting a clear precedent for equitable case allocation in domestic disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Jinia Sethi, is a deserted wife who has filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (C.P. No.743 of 2023) in the Family Court, Cuttack. She now seeks transfer of the proceeding to the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Athagarh, where she currently resides with her parents. The opposite party, Pradeep Kumar Sethi, is a government servant posted in Cuttack.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was deserted by her husband and has been residing at Badamba, approximately 100 kilometers from Cuttack, since the breakdown of the marriage
- She has no source of income and is financially dependent on her parents
- On 15.01.2025, she filed Cr.P. No.03 of 2025 under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for maintenance before the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Badamba
- The husband is contesting the maintenance petition in Badamba and has appeared before that court
- No interim maintenance order has been passed in Cr.P. No.03 of 2025 as of the date of this judgment
- The husband is employed with the Director of Industries, Cuttack, and is financially and physically capable of attending court proceedings
- The divorce case (C.P. No.743 of 2023) was stayed by this Court on 23.12.2025 via interim order in I.A. No.490 of 2025
- No written objection to the transfer petition has been filed by the husband despite his appearance in court
Procedural History
- 2023: Divorce petition (C.P. No.743 of 2023) filed by wife in Family Court, Cuttack
- 15.01.2025: Maintenance petition (Cr.P. No.03 of 2025) filed by wife under Section 144 BNSS before Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Badamba
- 23.12.2025: Interim order passed staying proceedings in C.P. No.743 of 2023
- 04.05.2026: Transfer petition (TRP(C) No.460 of 2025) heard and disposed of by Orissa High Court
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contends that her inability to travel 100 kilometers regularly for court appearances, coupled with her lack of income and the pendency of a maintenance proceeding in Badamba, renders attendance at Cuttack unduly burdensome. She argues that the husband, being a government employee based in Cuttack, is better positioned to attend proceedings in Athagarh, which is closer to Cuttack than Badamba.
The husband, through his counsel, does not oppose the transfer but seeks two conditions: (1) that the Family Court be directed to conclude the divorce proceeding within a stipulated time, and (2) that he be permitted to appear virtually when required.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks transfer of C.P. No.743 of 2023 from the Family Court, Cuttack, to the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Athagarh, to ensure her meaningful participation in the proceedings.
The Legal Issue
Can a matrimonial proceeding be transferred to a court closer to the residence of a financially distressed, deserted wife, even when the other party is based in the original forum, to ensure equitable access to justice?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized the petitioner’s destitute condition, lack of income, and the physical impossibility of attending daily hearings in Cuttack, which is 100 kilometers away. He relied on the principle of access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution and the doctrine of forum conveniens, arguing that the proceeding should be moved to Athagarh, which is geographically and logistically more accessible. He also highlighted the pendency of a maintenance petition in Badamba, which is in the same district as Athagarh, making consolidation of related matters practical and efficient.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel did not oppose the transfer but sought procedural safeguards: (1) that the Family Court be directed to conclude the divorce case within a fixed period, and (2) that the husband be permitted to appear virtually, given his government duties. He did not contest the factual assertions regarding the petitioner’s hardship.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the principles of natural justice, equitable access to justice, and the welfare of vulnerable litigants under family law. It noted that while jurisdictional competence is important, it must not become a barrier to justice for those in dire circumstances.
"The petitioner is a distressed lady having no source of income... it would be difficult on her part to travel such a long distance to attend the day to day proceedings at Cuttack."
The Court observed that the husband, being a government servant with stable employment and residence in Cuttack, is in a far better position to travel to Athagarh (approximately 30-40 kilometers from Cuttack) than the petitioner is to travel to Cuttack. The Court further noted that the maintenance petition under BNSS is already pending in Badamba, and transferring the divorce case to Athagarh would facilitate coordinated adjudication of related claims.
The Court also emphasized the importance of minimizing delay and ensuring cooperation from both parties. It rejected the notion that the husband’s non-filing of an objection implied acquiescence without consideration, instead treating the absence of opposition as a factor reinforcing the reasonableness of the request.
The Court held that the transfer would not prejudice the husband’s rights, as virtual appearance would be permitted, and the new forum would be equally competent to adjudicate the matter.
The Verdict
The transfer petition is allowed. The Family Court, Cuttack, is directed to transmit the record of C.P. No.743 of 2023 to the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Athagarh within seven days of the certified copy of this judgment. The Athagarh court shall re-register the case and conclude proceedings within four months of receipt. Both parties may appear virtually with court permission, except during witness examination, which requires physical presence. The interim order dated 23.12.2025 is vacated. The court also directed both parties to actively monitor case postings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Access to Justice Overrides Procedural Convenience
- Practitioners must now argue that financial hardship and geographical distance of a deserted spouse constitute valid grounds for transfer, even if the other party is based in the original forum
- Courts must prioritize the ability of vulnerable litigants to participate meaningfully over rigid adherence to territorial jurisdiction
- The forum conveniens doctrine is now firmly applicable in matrimonial disputes involving economic vulnerability
Virtual Appearance Is Not a Substitute for Proximity
- Virtual participation is permitted as an accommodation, but cannot replace the need to transfer proceedings to a physically accessible forum
- Courts must proactively enable video conferencing under Orissa High Court Rules, 2020, while preserving the requirement for physical attendance during critical stages like witness examination
- The judgment establishes a two-tier approach: virtual for routine hearings, physical for substantive evidence
Consolidation of Related Proceedings Is a Strategic Imperative
- When a maintenance petition under BNSS and a divorce petition are pending in the same district, counsel should immediately seek transfer to consolidate matters
- Failure to seek transfer may be viewed as exacerbating hardship, potentially inviting adverse costs or judicial disfavor
- This judgment encourages proactive coordination between civil and family courts in the same jurisdiction
