Disposed¶23

Jayanti Bal v. Debasis Pattnaik

Orissa HC9 May 2024MATA/26/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court MATA No.26 of 2021 | Jayanti Bal v Debasis Pattnaik | matrimonial appeal disposed 09.05.2024 | permanent alimony ₹12,00,000 satisfied by SBI demand draft no.355233 dated 04.04.2024 | return of marriage articles/jewellery disputed, no finding in impugned judgment | Family Court judgment 22.03.2021 dissolved marriage | advocates D.P. Pradhan (appellant) and D. Mohapatra (respondent) | bench: Justice Arindam Sinha, Justice M.S. Sahoo.

What did the court decide?

Demand draft no.355233 dated 4th April, 2024 issued by State Bank of India in favour of appellant-wife for ₹12,00,000 handed over to her advocate and accepted in execution, discharge and satisfaction of the permanent alimony direction in the impugned judgment; appeal disposed of. ¶23

Jayanti Bal Vs Debasis Pattnaik — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the permanent alimony of ₹12,00,000 directed by the impugned judgment stood tendered and satisfied. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Considering the permanent alimony directed by the impugned judgment stood tendered, the court handed over demand draft no.355233 dated 4th April, 2024 issued by State Bank of India in favour of appellant-wife for ₹12,00,000 to Mr. Pradhan, who accepted the instrument on instruction of his client, acknowledging receipt of the permanent alimony in execution, discharge and satisfaction of the direction made in the impugned judgment.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Although the appellant's advocate reported the jewellery and other articles as not returned and the respondent's advocate maintained all that was given were voluntarily returned with no proof found by the impugned judgment, the court disposed of the appeal upon the appellant's advocate submitting his client was constrained to accept what was returned.

¶21

Key takeaways

The appeal is disposed of as above.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MATA No.26 of 2021, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Arindam Sinha and M.S. Sahoo, JJ.), order dated 09.05.2024: Appeal by appellant-wife Jayanti Bal, aggrieved by the Family Court judgment dated 22nd March, 2021 dissolving her marriage with respondent-husband Debasis Pattnaik and directing permanent alimony of ₹12,00,000/-. Following the husband's deposit of an instrument for ₹12,00,000/- (still valid), the court observed the appeal could be disposed of on return of the articles received at the time of marriage and reproduced paragraphs 2 to 4 of its order dated 26th April, 2024: the husband's advocate offered return of furniture with transport; the wife's advocate reported other articles including jewellery unreturned, with no finding thereon in the impugned judgment; the husband's side maintained all that was given were voluntarily returned, there being no proof found by the impugned judgment. Considering the alimony stood tendered, demand draft no.355233 dated 4th April, 2024 (State Bank of India) for ₹12,00,000 was handed over to the appellant's advocate and accepted in execution, discharge and satisfaction of the alimony direction; the appeal was disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MATA No.26 of 2021

¶3

Jayanti Bal ..... Appellant Repre s ented By Adv. - M r. D.P. Pradhan, Advocate -versus-

¶4

Debasis Pattnaik ..... Respondent Repre s ented By Adv. - M r. D. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

ORDER

09.05.2024

Order No.

1. Appellant-wife had preferred the appeal being aggrieved by judgment date d 22^nd March, 2021 of the Family Co u rt, dissolving the marriage on direction for permanent alimony to be paid at ₹12,00,000/-. B y our order dated 21^st March, 2024 w e had observed that parties have crossed their prime in life. As they wanted to

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

contest, the a p peal is to be heard. Subsequent the r eto, respondenthusband depo s ited instrument drawn in favour of a p pellant-wife for ₹12,00,000/-. T he instrument is still valid. Pursuant to the deposit it transpired th a t the appeal could be disposed of on respondenthusband retur n ing the articles received at the time of marriage. We reproduce bel o w paragraphs 2 to 4 of our order d ated 26^th April,

¶15

¶16

“2. M r . Mohapatra, learned advocate appea r s on behalf respondent-husband and submits, his instr u ctions are there i s some furniture, which his client i s willing to return. So much so, his client will arrange for transp o rtation for the articles to be sent, if s o desired by appell a nt-wife. Otherwise she may collect.

¶17

3. Mr. Pradhan, learned advocate appear s on behalf appell a ntwife and submits, there are other articles as well, i ncluding jewellery. On query fro m Court he submit s , unfortunately impugned judgment does not contai n any finding about them.

¶18

4. On or prior to adjourned date appella n t-wife may collect the articles that respondent-husband s ays he will return. The arrangement can be worked o u t by using good of fices of the respective learned advocates.”

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

Mr. P r adhan submits, the jewellery and ot h er articles have not been retu r ned. Mr. Mohapatra submits, all that was given were voluntarily returned by his client, there being n o proof on the articles, found by impugned judgment.

¶21

On qu e ry from Court Mr. Pradhan submit s , his client was constrained to accept what was returned. The appeal be disposed of.

¶22

Consi d ering permanent alimony directe d by impugned judgment sta n ds tendered, demand draft no.355233 dated 4^th April, 2024 issued by State Bank of India in favour of a p pellant-wife for ₹12,00,000/is handed over to Mr. Pradhan. He accepts the instrument on instruction of his client. He acknow l edges receipt of the permanent alimony in execution, discharge and satisfaction of the direction mad e in the impugned judgment.

¶23

The a p peal is disposed of as above.

¶24

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶25

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Sks Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 09-May-2024 16:41:54

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 22nd March, 2021 of the Family Court dissolving the marriage, with direction for permanent alimony to be paid at ₹12,00,000/-.¶12
Family Court · 22nd March, 2021
Prior proceeding
By order dated 21st March, 2024 the court had observed that the parties have crossed their prime in life and, as they wanted to contest, the appeal was to be heard.¶12
Prior proceeding
Respondent-husband deposited an instrument drawn in favour of appellant-wife for ₹12,00,000/-.¶14
Prior proceeding
The deposited instrument was still valid.¶14
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the deposit it transpired that the appeal could be disposed of on respondent-husband returning the articles received at the time of marriage.¶14
Prior proceeding
The court reproduced paragraphs 2 to 4 of its order dated 26th April, 2024.¶14
Prior proceeding
In the reproduced order, respondent-husband's advocate submitted his instructions were that there was some furniture which his client was willing to return, and his client would arrange transportation for the articles if desired by appellant-wife.¶16
Prior proceeding
Appellant-wife's advocate submitted there were other articles as well, including jewellery, and that unfortunately the impugned judgment did not contain any finding about them.¶17
Prior proceeding
The court directed that on or prior to the adjourned date appellant-wife may collect the articles that respondent-husband said he will return, the arrangement to be worked out using the good offices of the respective learned advocates.¶18
Prior proceeding
Appellant's advocate submitted the jewellery and other articles had not been returned; respondent's advocate submitted all that was given were voluntarily returned by his client, there being no proof on the articles found by the impugned judgment.¶20
Prior proceeding
Appellant's advocate submitted his client was constrained to accept what was returned, and that the appeal be disposed of.¶21

Jayanti Bal v. Debasis Pattnaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayanti Bal v. Debasis Pattnaik

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

Rasish Ku.Panigrahi Vs Kalpana Panigrahi

Puspalata Paikaray Vs Birajananda Das

Pratima Barik Vs State of Odisha

Premananda Rout Vs State of Odisha

Tarakanta Hansda Vs State of Odisha

M/S Tata Steel Limited, Keonjhar Vs the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sambalpur