Anshuman Pradhan vs Lulipta Beura
2022 Latest Caselaw 3445 Ori

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 TRPCRL No. 37 of 2022

Anshuman Pradhan                           .....                                 Petitioner
                                                                 Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate
                                           Vs.
1. Lulipta Beura                           .....                            Opposite Party
                                                                Mr. S.C. Samal, Advocate
                                                                    (for Opp. Party No.1)
2. Nilamani Pradhan
3. Meerarani Pradhan                       .....                     Proforma Opp. Parties

              CORAM:
                  JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

                                                  ORDER

25.07.2022 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

07.

2. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Samal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1- wife.

3. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing difficulty as the case under D.V. Case No. 38 of 2022 filed by the opp. party is pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher while MAT Case No. 125 of 2021 which had been filed in Talcher by the petitioner had been transferred to Cuttack considering the convenience of the opp. party and at her instance and now renumbered as C.P. Case No.390 of 2021, is pending in the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Therefore, he has to come to Cuttack on almost each date the case is posted to, but the opp. party has not appeared on the last few dates on the plea that she does not have the money to come to Cuttack. The matter has therefore got delayed. On the last date also i.e. 21.07.2022, the petitioner was present but the opp. party chose to remain absent. He is facing

inconvenience contesting the D.V. misc. case at Talcher and the C.P. at Cuttack and the Opp. Party should retransfer the divorce proceeding to Talcher, if she is unable to come to Cuttack instead of harassing the petitioner.

4. Mr. S.C. Samal, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1-wife submits that the opp. party has not been able to come to Cuttack because she has no independent source of income and the petitioner is not paying her any maintenance and as she is presently staying in Talcher it is convenient for her to attend the D.V. case at Talcher. He further submits that four counselings have been done in C.P. No.390 of 2021, after which the concerned counselor has come to the conclusion that the opp. party is interested for re-unification and one more home visit was necessary and on the last date i.e. 21.07.2022, the conciliation process has been closed basing on the report of the counselor and now the case is posted to 03.08.2022 for hearing of the I.A. He further submits that he has applied for certified copy of the order and the same has likely to be received on 27.07.2022. He undertakes to file the certified copy of the order by 01.08.2022.

5. Hearing is concluded.

6. List this case on 04.08.2022 for delivery of judgment.

7. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.

8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(SAVITRI RATHO) Sukanta JUDGE