Deepak Kumar Raut vs Priyadarsini Raut
2023 Latest Caselaw 15896 Ori

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15896 Ori
Judgement Date : 11 December, 2023

Orissa High Court

Deepak Kumar Raut vs Priyadarsini Raut on 11 December, 2023

Author: Arindam Sinha

Bench: Arindam Sinha

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 MATA No.33 of 2020

            Deepak Kumar Raut                      ....            Appellant

                                            Mr. R.K. Mahapatra, Advocate
                                       -versus-

            Priyadarsini Raut                      ....          Respondent

                                                   Mr. B. Bhuyan, Advocate

                    CORAM:
                                JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
                                       ORDER

11.12.2023 Order No.

08. 1. Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of

appellant-husband and draws attention to order dated 20th November,

2023. He submits, his client has managed to get together ₹5,00,000/-

for purpose of demonstrating bona fide as directed in paragraph 5 of

our said order.

2. Mr. Bhuyan, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-

wife and submits, he disputes that the husband could only arrange

₹5,00,000/-. Under section 20 in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance

Act, 1956, a Hindu is bound during his lifetime to maintain, inter alia,

his child. There was direction in impugned judgment to make deposit

// 2 //

of ₹12,00,000/- in name of the minor son and pay ₹8,00,000/- to his

client for maintenance of the son till he attains majority. The appeal

has been filed to avoid compliance of the duty bound by section 20.

3. We reproduce below paragraphs 3 to 5 from our order dated

20th November, 2023.

"3. On query made to Mr. Mohapatra regarding compliance with the direction for payment of maintenance for the son by deposit or otherwise, he seeks adjournment. He submits further, respondent-wife is working in a private school and has remarried.

4. We have noticed finding in impugned judgment that appellant-husband is jobless and dependent on his parents. Mr. Bhuyan submits, there is otherwise admission in the memo of appeal. Considering that his client has not preferred appeal/cross objection against impugned judgment, we are not required to consider the appeal memo as additional evidence.

5. Adjournment is granted for appellant to demonstrate bonafide regarding compliance with the direction made in impugned judgment. We note that in addition to the husband having right to know his son, the son also must not be deprived of knowing his father."

On query from Court Mr. Bhuyan in fairness submits, the son

addresses his client's present husband as father.

// 3 //

4. Appellant will produce deposit receipt of ₹5,00,000/- in

an interest bearing account made in favour of the son, nominee

being respondent-wife. Care is to be taken to obtain the

maximum rate of interest and if by short term deposit, on

standing instruction for renewal thereof till or soon after the

date, when the son attains majority.

5. List on 11th January, 2024.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.S. Mishra) Judge Jyoti