Allowed

Anupama Agrawal v. Om Prakash Agrawal

Orissa HC19 Sept 2021MATA/73/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa allowed an interlocutory application to correct a factual observation in an earlier order. The court modified Para-6 to clarify that the marriage was dissolved via a party settlement, not a judgment by the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

Para-6 of the order dated 19.09.2021 was amended to replace the reference to the Family Court judgment with a statement based on the settlement between parties.

Anupama Agrawal Vs Om Prakash Agrawal — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MATA No.73 of 2020

¶3

Anupama Agrawal

¶4

..……. Appellant

¶5

Ms. S. Mishra, Adv.

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Om Prakash Agrawal .……... Respondent Mr. A.B. Pattnaik, Adv. on behalf of Mr. S.S. Tripathy, Adv.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER

¶10

03.03.2023

¶11

Order No. 10.

¶12

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement

¶13

(Virtual/Physical Mode).

¶14

2. Heard Ms. S. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the

¶15

applicant and also Mr. A.B. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Mr. S.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

¶16

3. By means of this application, the applicant has sought modification of the order dated 19.09.2021 as delivered in MATA No.73 of 2020.

¶17

4. According to Ms. Mishra, learned counsel, the fact relating to

¶18

the outcome of the matrimonial suit has been incorrectly reflected in

¶19

¶20

Para-6 of the said order. For purpose of reference, we reproduce the

¶21

Para-6 from the said order:

¶22

“6. In that view of the matter, this MATA is disposed of confirming the dissolution of marriage passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in Matrimonial Case No.01 of 2017. The terms and conditions and the averments made in the I.A. itself shall form a part of this order.”

¶23

[Emphasis Added]

¶24

5. It has been stated that the Matrimonial Case No.01 of 2017

¶25

was dismissed by the Judge, Family Court, Bargarh and that is reason

¶26

why the appeal was preferred for setting aside the Judgment of dismissal. But, in the above-reproduced para it has been observed in a manner as if the decree of divorce was granted by the Judge, Family Court, Bargarh, which is de horse the records.

¶27

6. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party has acceded that the said observation is based on incorrect reflection of the fact, but finally this court had declared the marriage to be dissolved in terms of the agreement between the parties.

¶28

7. In view of what we have noted above, in the order dated

¶29

19.09.2021, in Para-6 the line starting with “In that view of the matter, this MATA is disposed of confirming the dissolution of marriage passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in

¶30

¶31

Matrimonial Case No.01 of 2017.” shall stands deleted. In that place the following line be read and inserted:

¶32

“In view of the settlement arrived at by the parties and the terms and conditions of which has been reflected in the joint petition for dissolving the marriage, solemnized on 02.06.1994 between the parties, the marriage stands dissolved.”

¶33

A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties.
9. Registry is directed to make the necessary modification in the
order dated 19.09.2021 by the authority of this order.
10. A corrected order be uploaded in the system.
11. In terms of the above, this interlocutory application stands
allowed and disposed of.

¶34

(S. Talapatra) Judge

¶35

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶36

Rati Ranjan Nayak

Anupama Agrawal v. Om Prakash Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupama Agrawal v. Om Prakash Agrawal

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

Bhukei Patel Vs Rajendra Kumar Pattnaik, Director (R and R)

Manorama Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Sambit Setha Vs Cm, Regional Office, Uco Bank, Sambalpur

Rakesh Ku.Sahoo Vs Dipalisa Sahu

Deepalisa Sahu Vs Rakesh Ku.Sahoo

M/S.Priti Oil Limited Vs State of Odisha