LOPAMUDRA PATNAIK Vs. MANAS PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has made a prayer for transferring the MAT Case No.39 of 2016 from the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Koraput to the Family Court, Puri.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that the relationship in between the petitioner and the opposite party is wife and husband. For dissension and difference in their life, the husband at the first instance filed a Matrimonial Case bearing No.112 of 2014 in the court of civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Koraput seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the wife and at the second instance the opposite partyhusband also filed another Matrimonial Case bearing No.39 of 2016 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Koraput seeking a decree of divorce against the wife. In seeking transfer of the case, learned counsel for the wife contended that after institution of a case between the parties at the instance of the husband for restitution of the conjugal right, an application for transfer of the case was moved to this Court vide TRP (C) 201/2014 seeking transfer of the case on the premises of differences between the husband and wife, the wife had started residing at Puri. She being unemployed and it was thus difficult on her part not only to meet her travelling expenses to such a long distance but also unable to provide fees for engaging a counsel at such a distance.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party-husband does not dispute to the fact that there is already an order passed by this Court in TRP (C) No.201 of 2014 between the selfsame parties for transferring the case vide M.C. No.112 of 2014 from Koraput to Puri and further even though there is no dispute to the fact that the wife is not only a resident of Puri presently but the opposite party himself has also given her address at Puri in the case instituted vide M.C. No.39 of 2016 and the notice had also been issued in her address at Puri. But contesting the request made by the wife, in referring to his averments made in paragraph Nos.4 & 5 of the counter affidavit, Sri Panigrahi, learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the attempt of the wife is intentional and deliberate in order to harass the husband and that in the event, the case is transferred to Puri, there would be likely hood of danger to his life. Further, in substantiating his claim and opposing the claim for transfer of the case to Puir, learned counsel for the opposite party also cited the following decisions: (1) Kamaljit Kaur Vs. Prince Singh Chhabra,2006 1 OrissaLR 456 (2) case in between Pratibha Khemka Vs. Sanjay Kumar Khemka, 2004 13 SCC 686 (3) a case in between Banita Das Vs. Akshaya Ku. Mallick, 2014 2 OrissaLR 78 and a decision of this Court in TRP(C) No.9 of 2015 decided on 28.8.2015 an unreported decision of this Court. In referring to certain paragraphs of the judgment referred to hereinabove, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that in view of the observations and the directions contained therein, the decisions of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2002 (SC) 396 has been diluted and cannot be relied any further.