SUNIL KUMAR PRADHAN Vs. MEERA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra -Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant - husband to set aside the order dated 28.8.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in TRP(C) No.09 of 2015, by which while disallowing the prayer of the respondent -wife for transfer of the Civil Proceeding No. 96 of 2013 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, the learned Single Judge has directed the appellant -husband to pay Rs.15,000/ - on each and every date towards the travel and stay expenses of the respondent -wife and her companion.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the appellant married to the respondent on 10.3.2010 as per Hindu Rites and Customs. After the marriage, there was discontentment between the appellant and the respondent. Consequently, the respondent insisted the appellant to live separately from the family, which was objected to by the appellant, as a result of which there was dissension between the appellant and the respondent. Thereafter, the parents of the respondent took her to their house on 6.1.2012 and since then the respondent is residing with her parents. Since the respondent did not turn up to the matrimonial home, the appellant finding no other alternative filed C.P. Case No. 96 of 2013 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. As the respondent stays at Bhubaneswar and the appellant is running his business at Cuttack and the cause of action having arisen at Jajpur, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of C.P.C. seeking for transfer of the C.P. Case No. 96 of 2013 to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar on the pretext that after the discontentment with the appellant, she is staying with her parents at Bhubaneswar and there is no other male member to accompany her to attend the Court proceedings before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur and it causes lot of difficulties as she has no other source of income to maintain the proceeding before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur. On being noticed, the respondent entered appearance and filed an application under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was dismissed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur. But subsequently, she filed an application under Section 24, C.P.C. before this Court, which was registered as TRP(C) No.9 of 2015 seeking for transfer of C.P. Case No. 96 of 2013 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. The appellant on being noticed by this Court, entered appearance and filed his counter affidavit and upon hearing vide order dated 28.8.2015 this Court disposed of the said application disallowing the prayer for transfer of the divorce suit bearing C.P. Case No. 96 of 2013 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. But relying upon Anindita Das v. Srijit Das, (2006) 9 SCC 197 the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/ - on each and every date towards the travel and stay expenses of the respondent -wife and her companion. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that if the application has been filed under Section 24 of C.P.C. for transfer of C.P. Case No. 96 of 2013 from the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur to learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, the learned Single Judge could have given a finding why the said application will not be allowed, but instead of doing so directed for payment of Rs.15,000/ - on each and every date towards the travel and stay expenses of the respondent -wife and her companion, without realizing the difficulties of the appellant and his source of income and to mitigate the expenses so directed to be paid to the respondent. The reference made to Anindita Das (supra) could not have any application to the present context, rather, the learned Single Judge without understanding the difficulties faced by the appellant passed the order impugned and therefore, he seeks for interference of this Court.