Orissa High Court
MATA/38/2020 on 7 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.38 of 2020
MATA No.38 of 2020 & 104 of 2020
Manoj Senapati (in MATA No.38 of 2020)
Swati Patra (in MATA No.104 of 2020)
.... Appellants
Mr. A. Pattnaik, Advocate in MATA No.38 of 2020
Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate in MATA No.104 of 2020
-versus-
Swati Patra (in MATA No.38 of 2020)
Manoj Senapati (in MATA No.104 of 2020)
.... Respondents
Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate in MATA No.38 of 2020
Mr. A. Pattnaik, Advocate in MATA No.104 of 2020
CORAM:
SHRI JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
ORDER
7.7.2022
Order No.
10. 1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. A. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant in MATA No.38 of 2020 and the Respondent in MATA
No.104 of 2020 as well as Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent in MATA No.38 of 2020 and the
Appellant in MATA No.104 of 2020.
3. So far the appeal being MATA No.38 of 2020 is concerned, this
appeal has been heard with appeal being MATA No.104 of 2020
filed by the Respondent of MATA No.38 of 2020. In MATA
No.104 of 2020, the appellant is represented by Mr. A.P. Bose,
learned counsel whereas Mr. A. Pattanaik, learned counsel
represents the Respondent (husband). It is needless to mention that
both the appeals emerge from the same judgment i.e. judgment
dated 20th December, 2019 delivered in C.P. No.5 of 2014 by the
Judge, Family Court, Puri. On agreement by the counsel, by order
dated 30th June, 2022, this court has observed that, both the appeals
have been structured on legality of determination of the alimony.
That apart, the question relating to return of Streedhan, as described
in the Schedule 'A' of the divorce petition, will be considered by us
as ancillary to the main issue.
4. Both the counsel for the parties have stated before us that both
the Appellant and the Respondent in the respective appeals have
contracted second marriage after the decree of divorce was passed
and they are now leading their respective conjugal lives without
interference of each other.
5. In the appeal being MATA No.38 of 2020, the Appellant has
challenged the quantum of the alimony and the directions to return
Streedhan as per the Schedule 'A' of the divorce petition. In the
appeal being MATA No.104 of 2020, the Appellant has questioned
the determination of alimony, as according to the said appellant, the
quantum is so less, it requires to be upgraded with a just amount.
6. We have heard the counsel for the parties. In the changed
circumstances, we are of the view that, on the day of passing of the
judgment, the quantum of alimony as was determined to be paid to
the Respondent of the appeal being MATA No.38 of 2020, does not
require any interference from us. The Respondent in that appeal
[MATA No.38 of 2020] has re-married and hence, the alimony that
has assessed, according to us, be deemed as adequate and sufficient.
So far the issue of returning Streedhan is concerned, Mr. A.
Pattanaik has strenuously argued that there is no evidence that
Streedhan was handed over to the Appellant, i.e, the husband and
those are retained by him. We are unable to accept that contention,
inasmuch as, the Respondent in MATA No.38 of 2020, in her
testimony, has clearly stated that even though she was unemployed
at the time of marriage, but from the riches of her father, those
golden ornaments and other articles were purchased and given to
her on the occasion of marriage. Those gold ornaments and other
articles were sent to the custody of the appellant in MATA No.38
of 2020 and he had never returned those articles including the gold
ornaments. In this regard, the Judge, Family Court, Prui, while
issuing the direction to return Streedhan, has observed in para 8 of
the judgment that, the Respondent (wife) in her evidence has stated
that her father had handed over all the articles to the Respondent on
the day of marriage as per Schedule-A of the petition and the said
articles were sent to the Respondent and to his father who received
the same and all the articles, are now in the possession of the
respondent in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the Judge, family
court has returned the categorical finding which reads as under:
"The aforesaid evidence of P.W.1 has not been
challenged by the respondent during cross-examination.
R.W.1 has not also given any evidence denying the fact
that 'A' Scheduled property mentioned in the petition of
the Petitioner were not given to him and the same are not
within his possession. Therefore, when divorce between
the parties has been allowed, it would be expedient to
direct the respondent to return the 'A' Scheduled
properties to the petitioner."
7. It was further directed that the alimony will be paid and
Streedhan will be returned as per Schedule 'A' of the divorce
petition within a period of three months from the date of judgment.
8. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding.
Accordingly, the appeal being MATA No.38 of 2020 being bereft
of merit stands dismissed.
9. The Appellant in MATA No.38 of 2020 is hereunder directed to
pay the alimony to the extent of Rs.3 lakhs and to return Streedhan
in terms of the Schedule 'A' of the divorce petition within a period
of two months from today. Else the appellant in MATA No.104 of
2020 will be entitled to carry out execution for recovery of the said
money and those articles as described in Schedule-A of the divorce
petition.
10. Draw the decree accordingly and send back LCRs. thereafter.
( S. Talapatra)
Judge
( B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik / M.K.Panda
