Orissa High Court
Manas Ranjan Swain vs Babita Jena on 2 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 138 of 2019
Manas Ranjan Swain .... Appellant
Mr. Yeeshan Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along with Mr.
Ramakrishna Naik, Advocate
-versus-
Babita Jena .... Respondent
Mr. S. Das, Advocate of behalf of Mr. H.N. Tripathy,
Advocate
MATA NO.134 OF 2019
Babita Jena .... Appellant
Mr. S.Das, Advocate of behalf of
Mr. H.N. Tripathy, Advocate
-versus-
Manas Ranjan Swain ... Respondent
Mr. Yeeshan Mohanty, Sr. Advocate along
with Mr. Ramakrishna Naik, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M. S. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 02.08.2022
13. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The appeals being MATA No.138 of 2019 titled as
Manas Ranjan Swain vrs. Babita Jena and MATA
No.134 of 2019 titled as Babita Jena vrs. Manas Ranjan
Swain, are combined for disposal by a common
judgment in view of the subsequent events and the
consensus reached by the parties.
// 2 //
3. We have heard Mr. Yeeshan Mohanty, learned Sr.
Counsel along with Mr. Ramakrishna Naik, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant in MATA No.138 of
2019 and the respondent in MATA No.134 of 2019 and
Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing on instruction of
Mr. H.N. Tripathy, learned counsel for the respondent
in MATA No.138 of 2019 and the appellant in MATA
No.134 of 2019.
4. In both the appeals, the judgment dated 08.08.2019
has been challenged. In MATA No.138 of 2019, the
appellant has challenged the quantum of alimony for
being exorbitant. In MATA No.134 of 2019, the
appellant has also challenged the quantum of alimony
as according to her the alimony is inadequate.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in both the
appeals have stated that the appellant in MATA No.134
of 2019, Smt. Babita Jena has contracted remarriage
and out of the said wedlock a child has been born. Mr.
Y. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel has acceded by
stating that the fact of remarriage are admitted by the
parties. This admission strikes serious consequence on
// 3 //
the principal issue i.e. appropriate alimony. The
remarriage, during the continuation of the proceeding,
weakens the claim for alimony from her husband.
6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent-wife
has contended that the alimony that has been granted
is supposed to get effect from 08.08.2019 i.e. the date
of the judgment. Moreover, the appellant in MATA
No.134 of 2019 being unemployed has to spend a huge
amount as legal expenses. After a brief interaction, a
consensus has been reached that both the appeals may
be disposed of, on direction on the appellant of MATA
No.138 of 2019 to pay a lump sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (
Rupees Ten Lakhs) in favour of the appellant in MATA
No.134 of 2019 along with another sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as expenses of litigation.
7. On the basis of the said agreement, we would
dismiss the appeal being MATA No.134 of 2019 and we
would allow MATA No.138 of 2019 partly in terms of
the conditions as stated above.
// 4 //
8. It is made further clear that the said sum of
Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh) altogether, be
paid by the appellant-husband in the form of Bank
Draft or the Banker's Cheque in favour of the appellant
of MATA No.134 of 2019 within a period of two months.
Only after the said Bank Draft or the Banker's Cheque
is submitted before the Registrar (Judicial), the decree,
in terms of the judgment, be drawn by the Registry
from the date when the money will be deposited. Send
down LCRs, if received, thereafter.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
RRJena/GS
