Allowed

Padmalaya Dash v. Dola Gobinda Dash

Orissa HC8 May 2024MATA/86/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant-wife appealed against the Family Court's judgment dissolving her marriage on grounds of cruelty and awarding permanent alimony. The High Court held that the Family Court failed to appreciate facts, finding no evidence of cruelty as the couple had cohabited and had a child. The appeal was allowed and the Family Court's judgment was reversed.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of the Family Court dissolving the marriage and directing permanent alimony was reversed. The appeal was allowed.

Padmalaya Dash Vs Dola Gobinda Dash — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MATA No. 86 of 2022

¶3

…. Padmalaya Dash Appellant

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Dola Gobinda Dash

¶6

…. Respondent

¶7

Advocates appear in the case:

¶8

For appellant: Mr. Tanmay Mishra, Advocate

¶9

For respondent: Mr. Rama Chandra Rath, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

¶14

Date of Hearing: 1^st May, 2024 Date of Judgment:8^th May, 2024

¶15

¶16

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

¶17

1. The wife has preferred appeal against judgment dated 30^th March, 2022 of the Family Court, dissolving the marriage and directing ₹5,00,000/towards permanent alimony/maintenance. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

appears on behalf of appellant-wife while Mr. Rath, learned advocate for respondent-husband.

¶20

2. Mr. Mishra submits, ground for dissolving the marriage was erroneously said to be cruelty. There was no cruelty on part of his client. In the circumstances, we call upon Mr. Rath to demonstrate pleading and evidence on cruelty, as would appear from materials before the Family Court, its record being available.

¶21

3. Mr. Rath submits, appellant-wife was cruel to his client. She had confessed that she was under pressure to get married to him. She caused humiliation to him because he is a disabled person having suffered polio. Inspite of best efforts of his client she did not mend her ways. In January, 2013 she left for her parental home. His client is a junior practicing advocate. His senior went to bring her back, with no result. In March, 2013, there was second attempt to bring her back. This time his client along with family members went to parental house of respondent-wife. Not only she did not come back, she took away from his custody, the son born to them.

¶22

4. He submits, pleading of cruelty was there in the petition. It was reiterated by evidence on affidavit. His client along with his parents and uncle gave evidence. There were wild allegations made against his client’s

¶23

MATA no. 86 of 2022 Page 2 of 5

¶24

father, completely demolished by cross-examination of respondent-wife. Accordingly, the Family Court found the facts to support his client’s case of cruelty. The judgment is a good one directing dissolution of the marriage on payment of permanent alimony/maintenance. The money stands deposited in the Family Court.

¶25

5. Mr. Mishra in reply reiterates his submission that there was no cruelty, neither pleaded nor proved. We had requested learned advocates for the parties to either cause them to resolve their differences or find honorable separation. Mr. Rath, on instruction submits, his client is prepared to pay in addition, ₹10,00,000/-, taking aggregate permanent alimony to ₹15,00,000/-. Mr. Mishra on instruction submits, his client does not want money. His instruction is to press with the appeal.

¶26

6. We have perused the petition and written statement. We find, the marriage was solemnized on 10^th February, 2008. On query from Court we ascertain from Mr. Rath, his client took appellant-wife to Darjeeling in a group in May, 2008. The petition says a son was born to the couple on 26^th August, 2010. We also find from the petition, respondent-husband said he had forgiven appellant-wife for her previous acts prior to the marriage, which was suppressed but intimated through a benami letter.

¶27

MATA no. 86 of 2022 Page 3 of 5

¶28

7. Appellant-wife filed written statement denying the allegations made. She also filed evidence on affidavit. She, followed by her father and uncle were examined as witnesses from her side. We looked for cross-examination of appellant-wife on allegations she had made in her written statement, particularly regarding her father-in-law having behaved inappropriately with her on 17^th January, 2013. There was cross-examination to fuel Mr. Rath’s submission that the allegations stood demolished. However we find otherwise. Firstly, allegation made by appellant-wife, of inappropriate approach, was in her written statement and she in her cross-examination had said she had not disclosed before them, to anyone except her husband. This could not be disproved. On the contrary, questions in cross-examination were put to her as to why she had not disclosed it before. As such, her allegation made in the written statement could not be a ground of cruelty, as not made before filing of the petition, to give cause of action. Furthermore, appellant-wife had not alleged cruelty for dissolution of the marriage. It was the husband who did.

¶29

8. On perusal of materials on record, our inference is that the couple were happy with each other. Appellant-wife married respondent inspite of his stated disability. The petition carries allegations of cruelty meted out by

¶30

MATA no. 86 of 2022 Page 4 of 5

¶31

her right from the marriage onward. On the contrary they went to a hill station and later a son was born to them.

¶32

9. We are clear in our mind that the Family Court failed to appreciate the facts. There was no cruelty perpetrated by appellant-wife on respondenthusband as appearing from materials on record. Impugned judgment is reversed.

¶33

10. The appeal is allowed and disposed of.

¶34

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶35

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

¶36

Sks

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 08-May-2024 19:16:35

¶39

MATA no. 86 of 2022 Page 5 of 5

Padmalaya Dash v. Dola Gobinda Dash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmalaya Dash v. Dola Gobinda Dash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijay Kumar Chhatoi Vs State of Odisha

Kartik Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Bhagaban Raut Vs State of Odisha

Rasish Ku.Panigrahi Vs Kalpana Panigrahi

Puspalata Paikaray Vs Birajananda Das

Pratima Barik Vs State of Odisha