Disposed

Mehul Mishra v. Minati Panda

Orissa HC19 Feb 2024MATA/13/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Orissa High Court disposed of this appeal challenging a Family Court order rejecting a divorce petition. The lower court denied divorce because the suit was filed within two years of the wife's departure, lacking proof of desertion or cruelty. The High Court upheld the disposability of the matter with liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate court seeking remedy after the statutory

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to approach the competent court for a decree of divorce once the statutory period for separation lapses.

Mehul Mishra Vs Minati Panda — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No. 13 of 2023

¶2

Mehul Mishra

¶3

Appellant

¶4

Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate

Vs.

Minati Panda

….. Respondent

Mr.R. Mahato, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶11

MR. JUSTICE M. S. SAHOO

¶12

ORDER

¶13

19.02.2024

¶14

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 03.

¶15

Heard Mr. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Mahato, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶16

The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Civil Proceeding No. 70 of 2020, whereby it has been held that the appellant failed to establish the ground of cruelty and the ground of desertion as embodied under Section 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to get the decree of divorce in his favour.

¶17

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prayer of the appellant was rejected on a flimsy ground, for which he has approached this Court in the present appeal seeking to quash the same.

¶18

Mr. Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that since the respondent-wife had left the marital home

¶19

Page 1 of 2

¶20

on 19.03.2017 and the case was instituted on 07.01.2019, i.e. within two years of her departure from her marital home, therefore, learned court below passed a just and proper order and since there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, the same should not have been interfered with by this court at this stage.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at it appears, the learned Judge, Family Court rejected the prayer of the appellant for decree of divorce by observing that the respondent-wife left her marital home on 19.03.2017, but the case was instituted on 07.01.2019, i.e. within two years of her departure from her marital home. Thus, there being shortfall of statutory period of two years, no case of desertion is made out.

¶22

In view of the above and since in the meantime the statutory period has already been over, it is open to the appellant to seek his remedy in accordance with law.

¶23

With the aforesaid liberty, the MATA stands disposed of.

¶24

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶25

Arun

¶26

(M.S. SAHOO) JUDGE

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Feb-2024 10:49:14

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Mehul Mishra v. Minati Panda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehul Mishra v. Minati Panda

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

Anita Poddar Vs the State of Odisha

Bijaya Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Subodha Chandra Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Board of Management Vs Ajay Ku.Behera

Ruby Pradhan Vs Ganesh Ch.Nayak

Paradip Port Trust Vs Deputy Chief Labour Commnr. Central, Bbsr