Akshya Kumar Behera Vs Monalisa Khatua

The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the order dated 15.03.2024 at Annexure-4 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Proceeding No. 105 of 2022 which has been filed for grant of maintenance to opposite parties.

¶14

The learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur by the aforesaid order has recorded inter alia the following observation in the impugned order:-

¶15

“Admittedly, the petitioner is legal married wife of opposite party and for obtaining birth certificate of petitioner No.2, the identity proof of opposite party is required.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

In view of the above, this Court deems it fit to direct the opposite party to produce a copy of his identity proof to petitioner No.1 for the purpose of obtaining the birth certificate of petitioner No.2. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Put up on 22.04.2024 for further evidence of petitioner”.

¶18

In the course of hearing, Mr.J.K.Mishra-2, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur has no authority to direct the petitioner to share the document to the opposite parties herein since the present opposite parties have approached the said Court for grant of maintenance. He further submits that had the opposite party No.1 wants the birth certificate of opposite party No.2, she could have obtained the same by taking resort to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (in short, “the Act”). Accordingly, Mr.J.Mishra-2 has prayed to quash Annexure-4.

¶19

On the contrary, Mr.Prakash Ranjan Barik, learned counsel for opposite parties submits that the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur is definitely having jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to supply such document and the petitioner being legally married husband of opposite party No.1 is duty bound to supply the document which is required for

¶20

Page 2 of 4

¶21

obtaining the birth certificate of opposite party No.2 and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner herein is not cognizable and liable to be rejected.

¶22

After hearing the parties, this Court feels that the admitted dispute between the parties revolves round for supply of identity proof of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 for the purpose of obtaining birth certificate. The petitioner, however, does not dispute about possessing the required document i.e. the document of identity proof of opposite party No.2, rather his claim is that the opposite parties should have resorted to the referred provision of the Act. It is quite illogical and unexpected for a husband not to supply the identity proof of their child to his legally wedded wife since not only the father, but also the mother has every right over their child. Since birth certificate is required for different purpose, the mother can also have such certificate of her child who is residing with her, but in this case the husband is stoutly denying for supply the identity proof document of their child to the wife. Further, it is quite irrational to say that the learned Judge, Family Court has no jurisdiction to direct the husband-petitioner to supply the document, which is in his possession to the wifeopposite party in a maintenance proceeding and carrying an proceeding to this Court challenging such

¶23

Page 3 of 4

¶24

order (Annexure-4) in this present CRLMP which not only wastes the valuable time of the Court, but also is against the interest of society. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, this Court does not feel it proper to entertain the CRLMP to quash the impugned order which has been passed on sound reasoning and logic, but at the same time, this Court saddles with the petitioner the cost for wasting the valuable time of the Court. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand) to the wife and her child(opposite parties) immediately in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur on the next date.

¶25

The CRLMP is accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be immediately communicated to the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur.

¶26

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

kishore

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Jul-2024 17:03:40

¶30

Page 4 of 4

Akshya Kumar Behera v. Monalisa Khatua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshya Kumar Behera v. Monalisa Khatua

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smita Adhikari Vs Sanjeeb Kumar Nayak

Balaram Sethy Vs State of Odisha

Jyosnarani Sethi Vs State of Odisha

Amaresh Pradhan @ Bula Vs State of Odisha

John Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Nityananda Patro Vs State of Odisha