Partly allowed

Rajib Lochan Mishra v. Shantilata Mishra

Orissa HC1 Feb 2021MATA/109/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against an order refusing to correct a mathematical error in maintenance and benefit calculations. Due to an initial calculation mistake resulting in an inflated claim, the trial court erred in denying correction despite the husband seeking voluntary retirement. The appeal was remanded for correct recalculation.

What did the court decide?

The matter was remanded to the Family Court, Cuttack, for making calculations correctly and determining findings after giving parties an opportunity of hearing.

Rajib Lochan Mishra Vs Shantilata Mishra — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

MATA NO.109 OF 2020

¶2

01.02.2021

¶3

Due to the pandemic situation for COVID19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.

¶4

Heard.

¶5

Though this matter is listed under the heading of “Fresh Admission”, we are taking up the matter for final disposal.

¶6

In view of the nature of the order we are going to pass, there is no necessity of issuing any notice to the respondent.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 31.08.2020 passed in Civil Proceeding No.432 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for correction of some calculation error in the Judgment dated 31.08.2020 passed in the aforesaid Civil Proceeding.

¶8

On perusal of the judgment, it is found from para-9 of the judgment that the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack has calculated 1/4^th of Rs.11,000/- as Rs.4,000/-, though it should be Rs.2,750/- rounded to Rs.3,000/-.

¶9

In view of this initial calculation mistake, it has committed mistake in calculation, i.e., Rs.4,000/- X 12 = Rs.48,000/- and Rs.48,000/- X 7 =

¶10

Rs.3,76,000/-, though actually it is Rs.3,36,000/- on arithmetical calculation.

¶11

In the impugned order, learned Judge, Family Court has refused to make correction in the calculation on the ground that, as the petitioner, being the husband, is going to get much benefits, as he is taking VRS, he should pay the amount calculated, though it is wrong. Such reasoning does not commend to us.

¶12

In view of such fact, the matter is remanded back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, for making calculation axiomatically in a correct manner and reach the finding in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶13

The MATA is accordingly disposed of.

¶14

Authenticated copy of this Order downloaded from the website of this Court in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020 shall be treated at par with the certified copy of this Order.

¶15

………………………….

¶16

…………………………. Savitri Ratho, J.

¶17

Subha

¶18

Subha

Rajib Lochan Mishra v. Shantilata Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajib Lochan Mishra v. Shantilata Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basanti Behera Vs Superintendent of Police, Khurda

Biswaranjan Mahakud Vs Nibedita Behera

Nausad Raheman Khan Vs Chakrdahar Padhi

Kartika Chandra Das Vs State of Odisha

Hrudananda Harichandan Vs State of Odisha

Kabita Barad Vs State of Odisha