Orissa High Court
Anandamaya Mishra vs Nibedita @ Lina Mishra @ Guru on 21 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.133 of 2022
Anandamaya Mishra ......... Appellant
Mr. J. Sahu, Adv.
-Versus-
Nibedita @ Lina Mishra @ Guru .......... Respondent
Mr. R.K. Pati, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
21.12.2022
I.A. No.205 of 2022
Order No.
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the applicant
as well as Mr. R.K. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite
Party.
3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condoning the delay of 66 days in preferring the appeal under
Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 from the Judgment
dated 15.01.2022 delivered in Civil Suit (MAT) No.34/77 of 2012-13
by the Judge, Family Court, Balangir.
4. On perusal of this application, it appears that the applicant had
no knowledge of the Judgment dated 15.01.2022 till he received the
notice for execution. On having the knowledge, he took all
preparations for filing the connected appeal but by that time, the
aforesaid delay had taken place.
5. Mr. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party has
submitted that it is really strange that the applicant can take such
stand, when he had participated in the proceeding. Hence, it is
presumed that the knowledge of the final outcome of the proceeding
was within the knowledge of the applicant.
6. Be that as it may, considering that the appeal is in the nature
of matrimonial appeal, we take a liberal view and condone the
aforesaid delay.
7. In the result, this Interlocutory Application stands allowed and
disposed of.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
MATA No.133 of 2022
Order No.
08. 1. In view of the order passed today in I.A. No.205 of 2022, we
take up this appeal for consideration.
2. Heard Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
3. We find from the Judgment the matrimonial suit has been
allowed on the ground of adultery. The said Judgment has been
challenged by the appellant who filed the matrimonial suit being Civil
Suit (MAT) No.34/77 of 2012-13. We reproduce the operative part of
the Judgment which would suffice our purpose:
"The matrimonial suit is allowed on contest
against the respondents. The marriage of the
petitioner solemnized on 24.02.1993 with the
respondent No.1 is hereby dissolved from the
date of this order i.e.15.01.2022. A decree of
divorce be granted accordingly. The respondent
No.1 is not entitled to any permanent alimony/
maintenance from the petitioner. However, she is
at liberty to realize the arrear amount of interim
maintenance, if any, awarded in her favour vide
the order dated 01.08.2013."
That order dated 01.08.2013 was never challenged and it was
allowed to operate by forming the liability of payment of the present
appellant.
4. Though the permanent alimony under Section 25(1) has been
refused by the court, the said Judgment has not been challenged.
According to our considered view, arrear on account of the interim
maintenance as provided by the Judge, Family Court under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act vide order dated 01.08.2013 is realisable
and for that reason we do not find any infirmity in the Judgment as
challenged in this appeal.
5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
6. Pending interlocutory applications if any, stands disposed of.
7. Registry is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Rati Ranjan Nayak
