Disposed¶34

Arun Kumar Dash v. Laxmipriya Dash

Orissa HC23 Mar 2026WP(C)/2400/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands disposed of, the petitioner having apparently lost interest in prosecuting the matter. ¶34

Arun Kumar Dash Vs Laxmipriya Dash — Matrimonial and Divorce | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ application challenging the Family Court, Cuttack order dated 18.12.2019 in CMA No.68 of 2019 (interim maintenance under section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, arising from the husband's section 13(1) petition in C.P. No.337 of 2014) should be prosecuted or disposed of, given the petitioner's absence and unremoved defects. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The writ petition stands disposed of, the petitioner having apparently lost interest in prosecuting the matter.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

None appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called and the petitioner remained absent on repeated calls.

¶29

Key takeaways

Carrying out corrections in the order sheet after the order has been signed by the Judge is contrary to the Orissa High Court Rules and Practice.ratio¶21
The matter shall be placed before the learned Registrar (Judicial) to instruct the Superintendent, ASOs and other officials handling the Court records to take remedial measures.ratio¶22
The third paragraph of the order dated 18.02.2026 shall be renumbered as paragraph No.3 instead of paragraph No.2, and necessary corrections carried out in the order sheet in accordance with the rules.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.(C) No.2400 of 2020 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, J.; order dated 23.03.2026): writ pending since presentation on 21.01.2020 challenging the Family Court, Cuttack order dated 18.12.2019 in CMA No.68 of 2019 (filed under section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, arising from the husband's section 13(1) petition, C.P. No.337 of 2014), which had directed monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- from 22.12.2018 till disposal of the C.P. Defects directed to be removed on 13.02.2020 remained unremoved; none appeared for the petitioner on repeated calls and he was absent; the Court found the petitioner had apparently lost interest and disposed of the petition, directing a copy of the order to be forwarded to the Family Court for the records of C.P. No.337 of 2017. Separately, the Court observed that typographical errors by the Secretary (order number '05' typed instead of '03'; mis-numbered paragraphs) and post-signature corrections in the order sheet — recurring also in W.P.(C) Nos.24578 of 2014 and 5636 of 2015 — were contrary to the Orissa High Court Rules and Practice, and directed placement before the Registrar (Judicial) for remedial measures, renumbering of the third paragraph of the order dated 18.02.2026, corrections per the rules, and cautioning of the Secretary.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2400 of 2020

¶3

Arun Kumar Dash

Petitioner

None

-versus-

Laxmipriya Dash

¶8

…. Opp. Party

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

23.03.2026

Order No.

( Hybrid Mode )

04. 1 . The matter has been listed under the heading of “For referral to the Special Mediation Drive 2.0Mediation for the Nation”.

¶15

2. The writ application is pending since 2020 being presented on 21.01.2020.

¶16

3. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called.

¶17

4. On perusal of the order dated 18.02.2026, it appears that typographical errors have been made by the Secretary who has taken the dictation. He has typed order number “05” instead of “03”. The paragraph numbers have been wrongly typed inasmuch as, the 3^rd paragraph has been typed as “2”.

¶18

It is apparent that in several matters listed today i.e. W.P.(C) No.24578 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No.5636 of 2015, the same mistakes have been made by the said

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Secretary. There is also a repetitive pattern of error appearing in the order sheet.

¶21

Corrections are being carried out in the order sheet after being signed by the Judge i.e. the order No.05 has been encircled and written as 03. This practice is contrary to the Orissa High Court Rules and Practice.

¶22

The matter shall be placed before the learned Registrar (Judicial) to instruct the Superintendent as well as ASOs and other officials handling the Court records, to take remedial measures.

¶23

5. The paragraph numbers mentioned in the order dated 18.02.2026 are “1, 2 and 2”.

¶24

The 3^rd paragraph shall be renumbered as “paragraph No.3” instead of “paragraph No.2”.

¶25

Necessary corrections shall be carried out in the order sheet in accordance with the rules.

¶26

The concerned Secretary who has taken dictation and typed shall also be informed not to make mistakes. 6. The matter was presented before this Court on 21.01.2020.

¶27

By order dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench, defects were directed to be removed. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 18.02.2026, none appeared for the petitioner nor the defects have been removed.

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

7. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called. The petitioner is also absent on repeated calls.

¶30

8. The writ application was filed, inter alia , challenging the order dated 18.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Cuttack in CMA No.68 of 2019 arising out of C.P. No.337 of 2014.

¶31

The CMA was filed under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, arising out of the C.P. filed by the husband in the marriage under section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶32

9. The CMA was favoured directing payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) from the date of filing of the CMA application i.e. 22.12.2018 till disposal of the C.P. No.337 of 2014.

¶33

10. Apparently, the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the matter.

¶34

11. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶35

Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to be kept in the records of C.P. No.337 of 2017 which may have been disposed of in the meantime.

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Rajesh Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:31:43

¶39

Judge

¶40

Page 3 of 3

Arun Kumar Dash v. Laxmipriya Dash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Dash v. Laxmipriya Dash

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

Jamunarani Nayak Vs Manoj Kumar Nayak

Sanjana Meher Vs Sunil Kumar Meher

Munsi Abdul Sarfaraj @ Munci Abdul Sarfaraj Alli Vs Halima Khatun

Ipsita Mallik Vs Kishor Ram Bhar

Chinmayee Kar Vs Biranchi Narayan Rath

National Institute Vs Asst.Labour Officer