Allowed¶22

Yenu@Madaka Padmini v. Yenu Sridhar

Orissa HC23 Apr 2025MATA/108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MATA No. 108 of 2024; Yenu @ Madaka Padmini vs Yenu Sridhar; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; B.P. Routray; Chittaranjan Dash; 23.04.2025; Family Court Rayagada; C.P. No.59 of 2023; C.M.A. No.01 of 2024; divorce; Section 13(1) Hindu Marriage Act; ex-parte judgment; natural justice; hearing; written statement; cross-examination P.W.1; Amicus Curiae; restoration of proceeding; further opportunity to contest; proceed afresh; 14 May 2025.

What did the court decide?

MATA allowed; impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024 in C.M.A. No.01 of 2024 set aside and the Appellant-wife's prayer therein allowed; C.P. No.59 of 2023 restored to the Judge, Family Court, Rayagada; parties directed to appear before that court on 14 May 2025; proceeding to be taken afresh from the stage of filing of the wife's written statement. ¶22

Yenu@Madaka Padmini Vs Yenu Sridhar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 20.12.2023 in C.P. No.59 of 2023 (decree of divorce) was an ex-parte judgment passed against the Appellant-wife without hearing her. +1 more

¶18

Court's answer

The judgment dated 20.12.2023 in C.P. No.59 of 2023 is prima facie an ex-parte judgment made against the wife without hearing her.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The narration in the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 in CMA No.01 of 2024 that the wife participated in the argument through Amicus Curiae on all dates is seen to be incorrect on the face of the judgment dated 20.12.2023.

¶19

Key takeaways

Since the wife admittedly did not file her written statement, did not adduce any evidence and did not cross-examine the husband (P.W.1), the Court considered it appropriate to allow her prayer for a further chance to contest the Civil Proceeding.ratio¶21
The impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024 in CMA No.01 of 2024 was set aside, the Appellant-wife's prayer in the CMA was allowed, and C.P. No.59 of 2023 was restored to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matrimonial Appeal (MATA No.108 of 2024), High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 23.04.2025 by B.P. Routray and Chittaranjan Dash, JJ. — Yenu @ Madaka Padmini (Appellant-wife) v. Yenu Sridhar (Respondent-husband). Hearing a divorce matter originating in C.P. No.59 of 2023 (prayer under Section 13(1), Hindu Marriage Act, before the Judge, Family Court, Rayagada), the Court held that the judgment dated 20.12.2023 in that proceeding was prima facie an ex-parte judgment against the wife without hearing her; she had entered appearance but filed no written statement, adduced no evidence, never cross-examined P.W.1, and the impugned order dated 04.03.2024 in C.M.A. No.01 of 2024 incorrectly recorded her participation through an Amicus Curiae. Allowing her prayer for a further chance, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, restored C.P. No.59 of 2023 to the Family Court, Rayagada, and directed it to proceed afresh from the stage of filing of the wife's written statement, the parties to appear on 14 May 2025.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MATA No. 108 of 2024

¶3

Yenu @ Madaka Padmini

¶4

…. Appellant

¶5

Mr. Gopinath Mishra, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Yenu Sridhar …. Respondent Mr. Biswajit Pasayat, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

Order No.

ORDER 23.04.2025

Heard Mr. Gopinath Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellantwife and Mr. Biswajit Pasayat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Respondent-husband.

¶14

Present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada in C.M.A. No.01 of 2024 (arising out of C.P. No.59/2023).

¶15

The facts, as per narration of the parties, remains that the Respondent-husband approached the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada in C.P. No.59 of 2023 with a prayer for grant of decree of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Though the Appellant-wife was noticed and entered her appearance in the said Civil Proceeding, but she could not file her written statement. Learned Judge, Family Court while dispensing with the written statement on the

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

part of the wife, permitted her to contest the case. However, after examination of the husband as P.W.1, his cross-examination was deferred on the prayer of the wife and subsequently due to failure on her part to cross-examine P.W.1, his cross-examination was closed and then the case was posted for evidence from the side of the wife. In the opinion of the learned Family Judge, the wife was failed to produce any evidence on her part in due time and also failed to submit her argument on the date fixed.

¶18

As seen from the present impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024, the case was posted for argument on 12.12.2023 when both the husband and wife were present in the court in-person. Though it is mentioned in the present impugned order dated 04.03.2024 passed in CMA No.01 of 2024 that argument was heard in the civil proceeding in presence of both parties, but upon perusal of the copy of the judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed in C.P. No.59 of 2023, it reveals that the wife did not participate in the proceeding after counseling. It is also noticed that neither any witness was examined nor any document was exhibited on the part of the wife, and admittedly she did not file her written statement. It is thus prima facie conceived by us that the judgment dated 20.12.2023, as passed in C.P. No.59 of 2023, is an ex-parte judgment made against the wife without hearing her.

¶19

As per the narrations made in the present impugned order dated 04.03.2024 passed in CMA No.01 of 2024, the wife took part in the argument of the case in the Civil Proceeding being present through Amicus Curiae on all the dates, which is seen incorrect on the face of judgment dated 20.12.2023. Be that as it may, since it is admitted that

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

the wife did not file her written Statement nor did adduce any evidence and even did not cross-examine the husband (P.W.1), we feel it appropriate to allow the prayer of the Appellant-wife to grant her further chance to contest the case in the Civil Proceeding.

¶22

In the result, the MATA is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 04.03.2024 passed in CMA No.01 of 2024 is set aside and the prayer of the Appellant-wife in CMA No.01 of 2024 is allowed. Consequently, C.P. No.59 of 2023 is restored to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada on 14^th May, 2025 to receive further instruction, and the learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada is directed to proceed afresh in C.P. No.59 of 2023 from the stage of filing of the written statement by the wife-Appellant.

¶23

( B.P. Routray )

¶24

Judge

¶25

(Chittaranjan Dash)

¶26

Judge

¶27

S.K. Parida

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUT TACK Date: 02-May-2025 17:31:59

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Yenu@Madaka Padmini v. Yenu Sridhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yenu@Madaka Padmini v. Yenu Sridhar

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

Shaktimayee Tripathy@Panda Vs Biplabi Sangram Keshari Panda

Swapnarani Sahoo Vs Bansidhar Sahoo

State of Orissa Vs Rajendra Nayak

Manoranjan Sundar Ray Vs Rashmirekha Behera

Mata Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Ramachandra Udayabhanu Vs Bishnupriya Badajena