Convenience and Fairness in Matrimonial Litigation: Supreme Court Orders Transfer to Ensure Equal Access.


31 October 2025 Divorce Law >> Family Law   |   Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act >> Marriage Law  

In a significant yet nuanced order, the Supreme Court of India in Manjulata Sahu v. Prasant Kumar Sahu addressed a recurring issue in matrimonial litigation—the convenience of parties residing in different jurisdictions. The Bench, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Satish Chandra Sharma, allowed the appeal filed by the wife seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from the Family Court at Bhubaneswar to the Family Court at Jeypore, Odisha.

The appellant thus contended that two other related proceedings between the parties were already pending before the Family Court at Jeypore, Koraput, and that consolidation before one forum would achieve judicial economy and avoid undue hardship. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the appellant had earlier expressed willingness to appear through virtual mode—a facility already permitted by the impugned order of the High Court of Orissa.

 

 

Balancing these two considerations, the Supreme Court held that since the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for restitution of conjugal rights, filed by the wife was already pending at Jeypore and contested by the husband, it would be proper and fair that the husband's divorce petition under Section 13 of the said Act should also be heard there. The direction issued by the Court upholds both the concerns of procedural convenience and consistency in adjudication.

The order further states that once transferred, the Family Court at Jeypore shall issue fresh notices to the parties and proceed from the stage where the case had reached in Bhubaneswar. More importantly, the Court also reiterated the acceptability of virtual appearances, as it ordered that such a request may be considered with regard to local infrastructure and the legal framework.

The decision reflects the continuing sensitivity of the Supreme Court to harmonize the principles of access to justice and procedural efficiency in matrimonial disputes. The observation that, where possible, proceedings can be conducted in a virtual mode underlines the evolving adaptation of the judiciary to technology without letting it override the considerations of equity, particularly regarding women litigants with logistical challenges.

The judgment in Manjulata Sahu thus illustrates that judicial discretion for transfer petitions under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code has to steer towards ends being both fair and practical. In ensuring that interrelated matrimonial disputes were tried together in one forum, the Court re-underscored that justice must not only be fair but also accessible and convenient to both parties, particularly in emotionally and logistically demanding marital disputes.


Section 9, HINDU MARRIAGE ACT - 1955  

Section 13, Hindu Marriage Act - 1955  

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955