Disposed¶22

Subrata Kumar Mohanty @ Mahapatra v. Mugdha Dash

Orissa HC15 Apr 2026WP(C)/17887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance pendentelite; variation of interim maintenance; change of circumstances; rejection of variation application; jobless husband; Family Court Bargarh; I.A. No.06/2021; MAT Case No.81/83 of 2020; final order dtd. 15.12.22; decree of divorce with immediate effect; permanent alimony Rs.35,00,000/-; term deposit Rs.8,00,000/- and interest-bearing deposit Rs.7,00,000/- for minor child Debajyoti Mahapatra; monthly visitation; writ petition disposed as nothing survived; no fresh relief by the High Court.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief by this Court; writ petition disposed of as nothing survived for adjudication following the Family Court's final judgment dated 12.03.2026. ¶22

Subrata Kumar Mohanty @ Mahapatra Vs Mugdha Dash — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief by this Court; writ petition disposed of as nothing survived for adjudication following the Family Court's final judgment dated 12.03.2026.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.05.2024 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in I.A. No.06/2021, rejecting the petitioner-husband's application for variation of the interim maintenance fixed by the final order dtd. 15.12.22, called for interference by this Court.

¶12

Court's answer

In view of the judgment dated 12.03.2026 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh disposing of the matrimonial suit (decree of divorce with immediate effect, settled permanent alimony and deposits for the minor child), nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — W.P.(C) No.17887 of 2024 (order dated 15.04.2026, Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo): The petitioner-husband had challenged the order dated 21.05.2024 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in I.A. No.06/2021 (arising out of MAT Case No.81/83 of 2020), whereby his application for variation of the interim maintenance quantum fixed by the final order dtd. 15.12.22 was rejected for want of any change of circumstances. Pending the writ petition, the Family Court disposed of the matrimonial suit by judgment dated 12.03.2026, decreeing divorce with immediate effect against the respondent, recording a settled sum of Rs.35,00,000/- towards permanent alimony of the wife and maintenance and higher education expenses of the minor male child Debajyoti Mahapatra, directing Rs.8,00,000/- (term deposit) and Rs.7,00,000/- (interest-bearing deposit) in the minor's name till majority with interest to be spent on his maintenance, and permitting the petitioner monthly visitation. Holding that nothing survived for adjudication in the writ petition, the Court disposed of it accordingly.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.17887 of 2024

¶3

Subrata Kumar Mohanty @ …. Petitioner Mahapatra

¶4

Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate -versus-

¶5

Mugdha Dash & others …. Opp. Parties

¶6

Mr. Sanjay Ku. Panigrahi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

¶9

ORDER

¶10

15.04.2026 (Hybrid Mode)

¶11

Order No.

¶12

03. 1 . The petitioner-husband is before this Court challenging the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in I.A. No.06/2021 arising out of MAT Case No.81/83 of 2020 (Annexure-9 to the petition). The I.A. was filed on 10.03.2021 by the wife in the marriage seeking maintenance pendentelite. The operative portion of the order in the disposed of I.A. is produced herein:

¶13

“In view of order of Hon’ble Court, it has to be seen whether there is in any change circumstances requiring variation of the final order dtd. 15.12.22 passed in the original IA. Perused the final order dtd.15.12.22. The averment then made by the OP-husband that “presently he is jobless”, has been duly considered by this court

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

while passing the final order dtd.15.12.22 thereby disposing the IA after duly deciding the quantum of interim maintenance allowance to be paid by the O.P.-husband to the petitioners. The O.P has not moved any fact stating the change of circumstances requiring variation of the quantum of interim maintenance allowance; the only submission being made by the O.P is that till date he is jobless.

¶16

Considering all the above, it is seen that the O.P has not submitted any circumstance to show that there is any change in circumstances justifying variation of the final order dtd.15.12.2022. Hence petition moved by the O.P is rejected.”

¶17

2. Thereafter the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh has posted to final hearing and disposed of the C.P. by judgment dated 12.03.2026. Memo of date is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner enclosing photocopy of the judgment rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh. The ordering portion of the judgment is reproduced herein:

¶18

“The Matrimonial Suit is decreed on contest against the respondent. Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is dissolved through a decree of divorce with immediate effect. Out of the settled amount Rs.35,00,000/-(Thirty five lakh) paid by the petitioner towards the permanent alimony of the respondent and the maintenance and the higher education expenses of their minor male child, Debajyoti Mahapatra, Rs.8,00,000/(Rupees Eight Lakh) shall be kept in a term deposit in the name of the minor child till he attends majority. Besides, Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh) from the said amount shall also be kept in the name of the minor in an interest bearing account, till he attends the majority and the interest fetched from it shall be spent in his

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

maintenance. The above deposits shall neither be withdrawn premature, nor pledged in any manner. The petitioner is permitted to see their minor son, Debajyoti Mahapatra once in a month at any place as per their convenience.”

¶21

3. In view of the above, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.

¶22

4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶24

Judge

¶25

Radha

¶26

Signature Not Verified