Disposed¶23

Sangita Pahari v. Arnab Pahari

Orissa HC6 Apr 2026WP(C)/4550/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court writ petition disposed of on withdrawal memo; interim custody of minor son (age 10) refused in petition under Section 12 Guardians and Wards Act 1890 read with Section 151 CPC; visitation and contact rights not granted; question whether child interviewed by Court left for counsel to examine; liberty to file better application; Sangita Pahari versus Arnab Pahari and another; Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo; orders dated 23.02.2026, 18.03.2026 and 06.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Withdrawal of the application permitted, with liberty granted to the petitioner for filing of a better application. ¶23

Sangita Pahari Vs Arnab Pahari — Child Custody and Guardianship | Orissa HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4550 of 2026

¶2

Sangita Pahari

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Sarthak Das, Advocate On behalf of Mr. Sidhartha Das, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Arnab Pahari and another

¶7

…. Opp. Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

06.04.2026

( Hybrid Mode )

Order No.

03. 1. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following order was passed as reflected in the order dated 23.02.2026. The said order is reproduced herein:

¶14

“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at some length.

¶15

2. The petitioner is the wife in the marriagemother of the child:minor son, whose interim custody has been refused in a petition filed U/s.12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 151 of CPC.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked considering the age of the child being 10 years, whether the child was interviewed by the Court, he fairly submits that he has to examine that aspect and further time may be granted.

¶17

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the visitation and contact rights have not been granted and he

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

shall obtain instruction whether any visitation and contact rights was sought for by filing any petition.

¶20

4. The matter is adjourned accordingly to be listed for ‘Fresh Admission’ in the week commencing 16.03.2026.”

¶21

2. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 18.03.2026.

¶22

3. Today, the matter is being in the list is mentioned on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner at the beginning of the day’s proceeding and memo of date is filed which states thus:

¶23

“That, as per instruction of the client the above application may be withdrawn and liberty may granted to the petitioner for filling of better application.” (sic)

¶24

The memo shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be updated.

¶25

4. The petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶27

Judge

¶28

Rajesh

¶29

Signature Not Verified