Debasis Roul Vs Debasmita Das

2 . The writ petition has been filed by the husband in the marriage-father of the minor child aged about nine years. The father and daughter both are the petitioners. The daughter being minor is represented through her father.

¶17

3. The petitioners by filing the writ petition challenge the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Anandapur in I.A. No.62/02 of 2023. The I.A. before

¶18

W.P. (C) No.14439 of 2024 Page 1 of 3

¶19

the learned Sr. Civil Judge arises out of the C.P. Case No.13/2023. The said C.P. was filed by the husband in the marriage U/s.13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties to the C.P. on 28.04.2015.

¶20

4. The I.A. No.2 of 2023 was filed U/s.26 of the Hindu Marriage Act arising out of C.P. 13 of 2023 by the wifemother of the minor child. Pursuant to the notice issued by the coordinate Bench on 02.08.2024, the opposite partywife-mother of the child has appeared.

¶21

The matter was referred to mediation by order dated 14.11.2024. The mediation has not yielded any result.

¶22

5. Today, the matter being in the list under the heading ‘For Admission’ is taken up for hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioners produces certified copy of the order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Anandapur, which states thus:

¶23

“Order dtd.13.02.2026

¶24

Advocate for the petitioner is absent. P.W.-1 is absent. No step taken on his behalf. From perusal of the case record, it is found that the case has been posted for further cross examination of p.W.-1. P.W.1 is absent on repeated calls. Hence in the above facts and circumstances the entire evidence deposed by P.W.-1 is hereby expunged as P.W.-1 is found absent, for his further cross examination. Put up on later for further order.

¶25

Later

¶26

Advocate for the petitioner is absent. No step is taken on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner is absent on repeated calls. Hence the suit is dismissed for default of petitioner.”

¶27

W.P. (C) No.14439 of 2024 Page 2 of 3

¶28

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also files memo enclosing coloured photocopy of the certified copy of order dated 13.02.2026. The certified copy is returned to the learned counsel retaining the photocopy of the order. Photocopy of the order is also handed over to the learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶29

7. In view of dismissal of the C.P., the I.A. filed therein before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Anandapur U/s.26 of the Hindu Marriage Act would no more survive.

¶30

In view of above, nothing survives for adjudication in the present proceeding before this Court.

¶31

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the custody of the child being with the petitionerfather the efforts of the mother seeking custody U/s.26 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been frustrated.

¶32

In response to the said submission, it is observed that the mother of the child, if so advised shall avail remedy available for her under law seeking custody of the minor child.

¶33

9. The petition is disposed of with the above observations.

¶34

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶35

Judge

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Digitally Signed The 18^th March, 2026/Radha Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 23-Mar-2026 18:39:33

¶38

W.P. (C) No.14439 of 2024 Page 3 of 3

Debasis Roul v. Debasmita Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debasis Roul v. Debasmita Das

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

Kalpana Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Dipti Ranjan Satpathy Vs Chairman,Odisha State Commission for Women

Sushmita Pattanaik Vs Avinash Padhiary

Priyadarshini Nandy Vs Ashish Kumar Nayak

Sanjeeb Kumar Mallick Vs Adyashree Das @ Mallick

Gayatri Mohanty Vs Baibhab Ranjan Patra