Partly allowed

Soumya Ranjana Panda v. Hrushikesh Panda

Orissa HC25 Nov 2021GUAP/2/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the lower court's judgment granting custody ex parte. The appeal was disposed of on the condition that the mother be heard in a modified guardian miscellaneous case within a time-bound manner, emphasizing strict compliance to prevent automatic recall of the order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment was set aside; the application to be heard was restored subject to strict conditions.

Soumya Ranjana Panda Vs Hrushikesh Panda — Child Custody and Guardianship | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

GUAP No.2 of 2021 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Soumya Ranjana Panda

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Mr. Trilochan Nanda, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Hrusikesh Panda

¶8

…. Respondent

¶9

Mr. Bijaya Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order No.

03.

ORDER 25.11.2021

1. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who is the wife having custody of the daughter. He submits, the daughter is 12 years old. The Court below has granted custody to opposite party–father. This was by impugned judgment dated 22^nd April, 2021. The judgment was exparte. He submits, there be direction for remand of the case, to give opportunity to his client to present her contentions for continuing to be in custody of the child.

¶15

2. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondenthusband and submits, in spite of the judgment his client has not got custody of the daughter. However, in fairness he submits, in event a time bound direction is given for expeditious hearing of the guardian misc. case, his client will not stand in the way.

¶16

3. On perusal of impugned judgment, Court is not convinced that there is a case for remand on setting it aside, even under rule 23-A in

¶17

Page 1 of 1

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Code provides power to appellate Court to make any order as the case may require. As such, in view of appellant’s assurance that she will present her contentions before the Court on remand and respondent-husband’s fairness in consenting to it for purpose of obtaining contested adjudication, this Court restores the application for appellant to be heard on following conditions:-

¶20

i) Appellant will produce this order before the Court below within two weeks from date, upon notice to respondent-husband.

¶21

ii) The Court below, thereon will fix a date for hearing of the guardian misc. case.

¶22

iii) It appears from impugned judgment that argument of appellant was heard on 12^th April, 2021 and judgment delivered on 22^nd April, 2021. The Court below will proceed in similar manner to dispose of the guardian misc. case on remand. It is made clear that in event appellant prays for adjournment or stays away from hearing, the Court below will forthwith pronounce judgment.

¶23

4. On above conditions for rehearing, impugned judgment is set aside. It is made clear that such has been done not on merits but for the purpose stated above. It is further made clear that if appellant does not comply with condition (i) above, this order of setting aside impugned judgment will automatically stand recalled.

¶24

5. The appeal stands disposed of.

¶25

Judge

¶26

Prasant

¶27

Page 2 of 2

Soumya Ranjana Panda v. Hrushikesh Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumya Ranjana Panda v. Hrushikesh Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhana Mishra Vs State

Priyanath Subudhi Vs State

M/S Shri Krishna Solvent Extruction (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Icici Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd Vs the Permanent Lok Adalat for Pus.

M/S Krishna Tank Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Odisha

Trishna Agarwal Vs State of Orissa