Disposed¶19

Sabita Rout v. Sarat Rout

Orissa HC5 Jan 2024CRLMP/599/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; Justice Chittaranjan Dash; CRLMP No. 599 of 2023; Sabita Rout & another v. Sarat Rout; order dated 05.01.2024; Family Court, Cuttack order dated 06.02.2023 in CRP No. 64 of 2021 set aside; prayer of petitioner-wife declined on husband's statement claiming her self-help-group/tailoring income of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month without documentary support; fresh application ordered within fifteen days; consideration in accordance with law in view of supporting documents, if any; disposal within four months; CRLMP disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Family Court order set aside; Petitioner permitted to apply afresh within fifteen days for consideration in accordance with law, with disposal of the exercise within four months. ¶19

Sabita Rout Vs Sarat Rout — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Family Court order set aside; Petitioner permitted to apply afresh within fifteen days for consideration in accordance with law, with disposal of the exercise within four months.

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner-wife's prayer, declined by the Family Court on the basis of the husband's statement — including his unsupported claim that she earned Rs. 10,000/- per month — warranted being set aside and reconsidered.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

This Court observed that the statement of the husband was not supported by any document with regard to the Petitioner-wife's membership of a self-help group and with regard to her income of Rs. 10,000/- per month, and that it was on that basis that the learned court had declined the Petitioner's prayer.

¶18

Key takeaways

Setting aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2023, this Court directed the Petitioner to make an application afresh before the learned court below within fifteen days, upon which the court shall consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the documents, if any, supporting the contentions of the Opp. party husband with regard to the income of the Petitioner-wife.ratio¶19
Taking into account the nature of the application, the Court further directed that the learned court below complete the entire exercise within a period of four months from the date of application by the Petitioner.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; single-judge order dated 05.01.2024 by Justice Chittaranjan Dash in CRLMP No. 599 of 2023 (Sabita Rout & another v. Sarat Rout): the Court set aside the Family Court, Cuttack order dated 06.02.2023 in CRP No. 64 of 2021, which had declined the Petitioner-wife's prayer (nature of relief not specified in the order) on the basis of the husband's statement — reproduced in that order — alleging that she worked in a self-help group doing tailoring and earned Rs. 10,000/- per month; observing that the statement was unsupported by any document as regards her self-help-group membership and income, the Court directed the Petitioner to apply afresh before the learned court below within fifteen days, for consideration in accordance with law in view of any documents supporting the husband's contentions, and that the entire exercise be completed within four months; the CRLMP stands disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMP No. 599 of 2023

¶3

Sabita Rout & another …. Petitioners

¶4

Mr. Satyajit Mohapatra, Advocate

-versus-

Sarat Rout

…. Opp. Party

CORAM: JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

05.01.2024

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.

¶14

Order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in CRP No.64 of 2021 has been called in question before this Court. Learned Judge, Family Court while passing order declining the prayer of the Petitioner, has assigned the reason at para-3 as follows :-

¶15

“3. The husband-O.P. states that the wife-petitioner is an arrogant lady, who forced the O.P. to live separately from his old ailing mother and unmarried blind sister. When the O.P. does not agree with the wife-petitioner, she severely assaulted the O.P. causing injuries on his waist and the O.P. became disable permanently and he is unable to perform his daily labour work. The wifepetitioner is working in a self-help group and she is doing tailoring and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The wife-petitioner has voluntarily left the house of the O.P. with an unknown person. So, she is not entitled to get any relidf as claimed by her.”

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

As seen from the case record, the statement of the husband is not supported by any document with regard to the fact that the Petitioner-wife is a member of the self-help group and also with regard to her income to the extent of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month basing on which the learned court declined the prayer of the Petitioner.

¶19

Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2023, this Court directs the Petitioner to make an application afresh before the learned court below within fifteen days, upon which the learned court shall consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the documents if any supporting the contentions of the Opp.party husband with regard to the income of the Petitioner-wife. Taking into account the nature of the application, the learned court shall do well to complete the entire exercise within a period of four months from the date of application by the Petitioner. With the above observations, the CRLMP stands disposed of.

¶20

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶21

Judge

¶22

S.K. Parida

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 08-Jan-2024 19:49:03

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Sabita Rout v. Sarat Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabita Rout v. Sarat Rout

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiba Vs State

Madhab Charan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Majeda Bibi Vs State of Odisha

Sureshan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Manjari Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Shradhanjali Behera Vs State of Odisha