Dismissed

Rudra Pr.Tripathy v. Sasmita Tripathy

Orissa HC7 Dec 2021WP(C)/16448/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging a Family Court order that allowed the opposite party wife to amend her written statement. The High Court refused to interfere, holding that the petitioner was reserving rights regarding allegations and could rely on written statement passages as potential admissions.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Family Court order allowing amendment was refused; matter disposed of with request for expeditious divorce proceedings.

Rudra Pr.Tripathy Vs Sasmita Tripathy — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16448 of 2014 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Rudra Prasad Tripathy …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. M.R.Satpathy, Advocate -versus-

¶5

Sasmita Tripathy

¶6

…. Opposite Party

¶7

Mr.A.Mohanty, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

Order No.

ORDER

07.12.2021

23.

Mr. Satpathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 11^th August, 2014, by which amendment petition of opposite party wife was allowed. The order should be quashed because it carries material irregularity and illegality, by allowing opposite party wife to change nature and character of her case. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Santha Maryadit v. Usman Habib Dhuka , reported in 2013 (2) O.J.R. 53 SC .

¶14

He places reliance on several passages in the written statement filed by opposite party wife. In clause (C) of paragraph 15, she said that during her stay at Kolkata, Bhubaneswar and Hyderabad there was no quarrel. In clause (D) she said that her stay in her husband’s residential house in Bhubaneswar was also happy.

¶15

Page 1 of 1

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

In clause (F) of said paragraph, she said she left her father-in-law’s house due to severe illness of the child and for her treatment.

¶18

Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party wife and submits, the trial Court has held that the fact of cruelty, which his client sought to incorporate by way of amendment, was elaboration. He points out that in clause (F) of paragraph 15 in the written statement, his client has said that her husband’s family refused to take her back.

¶19

Perused the petition and the written statement. In paragraph 9 of the petition, petitioner has alleged cruelty by opposite party. She in her written statement, by paragraph 14 had reserved her right to have her say at the time of hearing of the petition, inter alia, with regard to allegations made in paragraph 9 of the petition. As such this Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned order. Be it said that petitioner can rely on above and other passages in the written statement as admissions made by opposite party wife and she can seek to explain, if the passages are perceived as admissions.

¶20

With above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. It has been kept pending and disposed of today as an old matter. The Family Court is requested to proceed with the divorce case as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶22

RKS

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Rudra Pr.Tripathy v. Sasmita Tripathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudra Pr.Tripathy v. Sasmita Tripathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Orissa Machinery and Sanitary Vs State of Odisha

M/Slaxmi Sanitary and Engineering Vs State of Odisha

M/S.M.M.Enterpreises Vs State of Odisha

Sushant Ku.Majhi Vs Hpc Ltd.

Sibani Shankar Sahoo Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Bijaya Ku.Jena Vs State Bank of India