Dismissed

Sasmita Rath @ Tripathy v. Surya Prasad Tripathy

Orissa HC9 Feb 2023WP(C)/458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Family Court's rejection of an application for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court held that travel expenses for court appearances could not justify litigation costs and found no error in refusing the petition where interim maintenance was already in place.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of any merit.

Sasmita Rath @ Tripathy Vs Surya Prasad Tripathy — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 458 OF 2023

¶2

Sasmita Rath @ Tripathy and another

¶3

…. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Swarup Kumar Patnaik, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Surya Prasad Tripathy

¶7

…. Opp. Party Mr. Sandeep Rath, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

09.02.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

Order dated 10^th November, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in I.A. No.27 of 2021 (arising out of C.P. No.281 of 2021/ C.P. No.55 of 2017) is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby the petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), has been rejected.

¶15

It is submitted by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel that the Petitioner No.1 is the legally married wife of the Opposite Party and Petitioner No.2 is born out of their wedlock. Although a direction has been made by learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack in a proceeding under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to pay interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.1, but the said order has not yet been complied with. He further submits that due to non-compliance of the order of interim maintenance, the Petitioner No.1 has moved learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack and the salary of the Opposite Party has

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

already been attached for realisation of the arrear maintenance. The Petitioner No.1 does not have any independent source of income. The Petitioner No.2 is pursuing her study in UKG in a public school. The Petitioner No.1 has to travel to Puri to attend the civil proceeding. These material aspects were not taken into consideration by learned Judge, Family Court, Puri while refusing to entertain the application. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1 and remit the matter to learned Judge, Family Court, Puri for fresh adjudication of the petition under Section 24 of the Act.

¶19

Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that relationship between the parties is not disputed. However, the Petitioners are staying in the official quarter of the Opposite Party at Cuttack. It is at the instance of the Petitioner No.1, the civil proceeding was transferred to the Family Court, Puri. Thus, the plea that she has to spent money to travel from Cuttack to Puri to attend the case, cannot be a ground to grant pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses. He further submits that due to occupation of the official quarter by the Petitioners, the Opposite Party is staying in a rented house along with his old and ailing parents. After order of attachment, the Opposite Party does not have sufficient money to meet his personal expenses. As such, learned Family Court has committed no error in rejecting the petition under Section 24 of the Act.

¶20

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Petitioners are staying in official quarter of the Opposite Party. On perusal of the petition

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

under Section 24 of the Act annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-14, it reveals that no ground is made out that the maintenance awarded by learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack is not sufficient for their sustenance. Step has also been taken for realisation of the amount. Although the Petitioners have alleged that they require money for study as well as medical expenses of Petitioner No.2, but it appears that no detail particular was placed before learned Judge, Family Court to that effect. Travelling to Puri to attend the case cannot be a ground to grant litigation expenses, as the civil proceeding was transferred to Puri at the instance of the Petitioner No.1 Since there is an order of interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 by the Opposite Party, I feel that learned Judge, Family Court, Puri has committed no error in dismissing the petition under Section 24 of the Act.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶25

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶26

(K.R. Mohapatra)

¶27

¶28

Judge

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Sasmita Rath @ Tripathy v. Surya Prasad Tripathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasmita Rath @ Tripathy v. Surya Prasad Tripathy

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

Pradeep Kumar Naik Vs Lokanath Sahoo

Rabindranath Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Subhalaxmi Behera Vs Sanjay Tripathy

Binod Parida Vs Bishnu Priya Parida

Subhasmita Khatua Vs Kausik Kumar Sahoo

Pradeep K.Panigrahy@ Vs Archana Panda