Dismissed

Rajanikant Choudhury v. Jayanti Jasabanti Nayak

Orissa HC28 Jul 2025MATA/12/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as a condition precedent for condoning a 29-day delay, an obligation that remained unfulfilled for over eight years. The court held that maintenance payments did not modify the original order, leading to the dismissal of both the appeal and an interim application.

What did the court decide?

The appeal and Interim Application No. 245 of 2025 stand dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 24.03.2017 and delay.

Rajanikant Choudhury Vs Jayanti Jasabanti Nayak — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

MATA No.12 of 2017

¶3

Rajanikant Choudhury

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Represented By Adv. – Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Jayanti Jasabanti Nayak and others Respondents

¶8

Represented By Adv. – Mr. A. Das, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

28.07.2025

Order No.

15.

1. The appeal was filed in the year 2017 by the husband challenging the judgment dated 17.11.2016 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur at Ganjam rejecting his prayer in C.P. No.54 of 2013 filed under section 12(1)(b) and 13(i)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking declaration that the marriage between appellant and Respondent No.1, held on 07.03.2011 to be void.

¶16

The appeal was filed after brooking a delay of 29 days as on 18.01.2017. Misc. Case No.17 of 2017 was filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Notices were issued by a coordinate Bench by order dated 17.02.2017 in the Misc. Case No.17 of 2017. On appearance of the respondent, the matter was taken up on 24.03.2017 and the following order was passed:

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

“ Order No.3. This Misc. Case has been filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶19

Heard Mr. A. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents. There is a delay of 29 days in filing of the appeal. Considering the grounds urged in this misc. case and after hearing both sides, delay in filing the appeal is condoned subject to the appellant paying cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the respondents through their counsel within two weeks.

¶20

Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.”

¶21

“MATA No.12 of 2017 Order No.4. List this matter for admission after production of money receipt.”

¶22

3. Apparently, thereafter the order was not complied with within two weeks i.e. by 15.04.2017 by depositing Rs.10,000/-. Rather the order remains not complied, though it was conditional for condoning the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. The money receipt has not yet been filed as directed by the order No.4 dated 24.03.2017 in the appeal (MATA).

¶23

Thereafter, on 16.05.2022 when the matter was listed none had appeared for the appellant before the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat after the matter was referred. On 24.06.2022 the appellant was present but no steps were taken for production of receipt after deposit of the amount of Rs.10,000/-. After several dates of listing before the Lok Adalat i.e. on 12.08.2022, 09.09.2022 and 23.09.2022 no steps were taken for deposit of Rs.10,000/- as directed by the earlier order of the Division Bench.

¶24

The matter travelled back to the Court from Lok Adalat and listed before the assigned Bench. Before the Coordinate Bench, by order dated 10.04.2025 the matter was again adjourned by the

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

appellant. However, no steps have been taken for deposit of the said amount of Rs.10,000/- as directed. Thereafter on 07.05.2025 again the matter was adjourned by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶27

4. On 16.07.2025 the matter was placed before the coordinate Bench where one of us (M.S. Sahoo, J.) was member. I.A. No. 245 of 2025 filed on 20.04.2025 was moved for condonation of delay of about eight years in depositing Rs.10,000/- and further prayer was made in the I.A. to reduce the amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1000/-. As the Court did not accede to such prayer the matter was adjourned by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is regularly paying the maintenance and regularly appearing before the mediation. The learned counsel also prays for withdrawing the I.A. No. 245 of 2025.

¶29

5. In any view of the matter, such activity of the appellant cannot have the effect of modifying/effacing the order dated 24.03.2017 passed by the coordinate Bench.

¶30

In our considered opinion, the order dated 24.03.2017 being conditional for condonation of delay and deposit of amount of Rs.10,000/- being the pre-condition for condonation of delay, the same having not been complied with, the delay brooked now comes to more than eight years and the conditional order remains not complied with. No cause has been shown and the order No.3 in I.A. No.17 of 2017 and order No.4 in MATA have been continuously violated by the appellant.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

6. In such view of the matter, we have no other option than to dismiss the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed for noncompliance of the order No.3 dated 24.03.2017 passed in Misc. Case No.17 of 2017 and order No.4 dated 24.03.2017 passed in the MATA and for delay of eight years. I.A. No.245 of 2025 is also dismissed as withdrawn and also being devoid of any merit.

¶33

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge

¶34

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Jyostna

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 06-Aug-2025 16:55:04

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Rajanikant Choudhury v. Jayanti Jasabanti Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajanikant Choudhury v. Jayanti Jasabanti Nayak

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

Laxmi Narayan Singh Vs Sunitaprava Jenamani @ Singh

State of Odisha Vs Prafulla Kumar Jena

Nalanda Institute of Technology, Bbsr Vs State of Odisha