Dismissed¶21

Prafulla Luha v. Asha Mahanandia

Orissa HC8 Sept 2025WP(C)/16422/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amendment of pleadings Order VI Rule 17 CPC; impleadment of alleged adulterer Order I Rule 10 CPC; dominus litis right to sue; Rule 5 Orissa High Court Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules 1956; Family Court Rourkela C.P. No.136 of 2023; Charge Sheet G.R. Case No.832 of 2023; Hindu marriage dissolution proceeding; Bhumishri Munda @ Luha added as Respondent No.2; Prafulla Luha v. Asha Mahanandia; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

This Court found no infirmity in the impugned Family Court order allowing amendment of pleadings and impleadment of the adulterer, and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. ¶20

Prafulla Luha Vs Asha Mahanandia — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.16422 of 2025

¶3

Prafulla Luha

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Asha Mahanandia

¶8

Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

ORDER

08.09.2025

Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

2. Heard Mr. B.K. Sahoo, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who appears through virtual mode.

¶16

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner-husband challenging the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in C.P. No.136 of 2023 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela . Vide the said Order the applications, both dated 24.10.2024 , filed by the Opposite Party-wife, who is the Petitioner in C.P. No.136 of 2023, under Order-6 Rule17 and under Order-1 Rule-10 of C.P.C. to amend her pleadings and implead the adulterer as a party to the said proceeding stood allowed and she was directed to file an application for amendment to add Bhumishri Munda @ Luha as Respondent No.2.

¶17

4. As is revealed from the impugned order, the Court below, apart from taking note of the contents of the Charge Sheet in G.R. Case No.832 of 2023, referring to Rule- 5 of

¶18

the Orissa High Court Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1956, allowed such petition of the Petitioner-wife, who is the sole Opposite Party in the present Writ Petition, with the following observation:-

¶19

“ 5. In view of the Rule (supra) and that the petitioner being a dominus litis of her proceeding, has the right to sue any party, against whom the right to sue survives. The facts sought to be incorporated by way of an amendment admittedly have taken place before the filing of the present proceeding and were very much within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused in case the amendment is allowed and Bhumishree Munda @ Luha as a party be added, as it will not change the nature of the proceeding. Accordingly, the petition for amendment is allowed. The petitioner is directed to file an amended petition adding the Bhumishri Munda @ Luha as respondent no.2.”

¶20

5. After going through the pleadings and documents on record so also the contents of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶21

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶22

7. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela for information and record.

(S.K. MISHRA)

JUDGE

Banita

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 09-Sep-2025 16:54:30

¶28

Page 2 of 2

Prafulla Luha v. Asha Mahanandia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Luha v. Asha Mahanandia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Swarnaprava Hati Vs Board of Directors Cum-Reviewing Authority,Odisha

Niraj Nalini Parija Vs Sunam Shankar Pattanaik

Anshuman Patnaik Vs Pratikshiya Swain

Santosh Kumar Parida Vs State of Orissa

Union of India Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer,Khurda Road

Anuradha Biswal Vs Subhadipta Swain