Allowed

Dr. Priyadarshee Praharaj v. Dr. Monalisha Dash

Orissa HC6 Apr 2023MATA/92/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the dismissal of a suit for divorce. The court observed that the parties mutually agreed to a lump sum payment of Rs.12,00,000/- to settle all disputes, leading to the granting of a final decree dissolving the marriage.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; Marriage dissolved subject to condition that appellant pays respondent Rs.12,00,000/- within three months.

Dr. Priyadarshee Praharaj Vs Dr. Monalisha Dash — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MATA No.92 of 2022

¶3

Dr. Priyadarshee Praharaj ..……. Appellant

¶4

Mr. R. Rajgarhia, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Dr. Monalisha Dash ..……. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Biswaranjan Das, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

06.04.2023

Order No. 09.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶14

2. Heard Mr. R. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Biswaranjan Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶15

3. By means of this appeal, the judgment dated 11.02.2022 delivered in C.P. No.64/215 of 2021/2020 by the Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh has been challenged.

¶16

4. By the said judgment, the matrimonial suit instituted by the appellant for dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion has been dismissed.

¶17

5. The appellant and the respondent, along with their counsel,

¶18

are present in the proceeding today. The respondent has clearly stated that their marriage has been irretrievably broken down and there is no

¶19

¶20

sign of its retrieval. As such, she will have no objection, if the marriage that was solemnized on 08.12.2017 is dissolved by a decree of divorce. But the respondent has stated at the same time that she should be compensated for materials which she could not bring from the matrimonial home. Even she has claimed alimony to that extent, which she deserves for maintaining the standard of life which she is

¶21

entitled to.

¶22

6. The respondent has fairly submitted that she is employed and earning a sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) per month approximately.

¶23

7. Mr. Biswaranjan Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the respondent is entitled to monetisation by the appellant against properties and jewellary.

¶24

8. Ms. R. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has stated that no such jewellary, as claimed by the respondent, were

¶25

ever taken into possession or custody by the appellant. The money that has been projected to have been taken by the appellant, was taken with consent and most of the amount that had been withdrawn from the account was given to the respondent.

¶26

9. All these areas cannot be resolved, even if the parties are allowed to lead the evidence. For that reason, we have actively

¶27

¶28

interacted with them for having a final settlement on payment of a lump sum amount.

¶29

10. We are happy to observe that both the appellant and the respondent have agreed upon a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) to be paid by the appellant to the respondent within a period of three months from today for giving quietus to all the disputes between

¶30

the parties. No further claim will be raised by either of the parties.

¶31

11. The parties have also agreed that all the pending proceedings

¶32

will be withdrawn or taken to their end, pursuant to the settlement as

¶33

arrived at. 12. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed.

¶34

13. The marriage that subsists between the parties, stands dissolved subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay the said lump sum amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) to the respondent within a period of three months.

¶35

14. The Registry is directed to draw the decree accordingly.

¶36

15. Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties.

¶37

(S. Talapatra) Judge

¶38

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶39

Subhasis

¶40

¶41

Dr. Priyadarshee Praharaj v. Dr. Monalisha Dash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Priyadarshee Praharaj v. Dr. Monalisha Dash

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

Subrat Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Urban Co-Operative Vs Drt,Cuttack

Sasmita Jena Vs Ajit Kumar Samantray

M/S.Gmr Kmalanga Energy Ltd. Vs State of Orissa

Aditya Prasad Swain Vs Lisnarani Patsani @ Swain

M/S.Mangturam Shyamsundar Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes