Ranjit Kumar Sahu vs Prangyabati Sahu
2023 Latest Caselaw 1272 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           MATA No. 142 of 2014
            Ranjit Kumar Sahu           ....                   Appellant
                                                  Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate


                                    -versus-


            Prangyabati Sahu             ......                  Respondent
                                                 Mr. A.K. Chaudhury, Adv

                           CORAM:
                           JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
                           JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                 ORDER

07.02.2023 Order No.

16. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. By means of this appeal, the judgment dated 26.09.2014 delivered in Civil Proceeding No. 139 of 2010 by the Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam has been called in question.

4. Pursuant to the said judgment, the decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been passed with condition. The condition is as follows:

"...the petitioner is to take steps for his separate establishment, not including his family members in

Berhampur, and he undertakes that in future the respondent should not suffer physically, mentally and socially for the cause of the petitioner. The petitioner is to fulfil all demands within one month from the date of decree and thereafter, at the instance of the petitioner, the respondent will join the petitioner with the son within one month of such preparation for leading their conjugal rights."

5. There is no challenge against the decree of restitution of conjugal rights, but the challenge is against the said condition. From reading of the judgment, it appears that the respondent herein, the opposite party in the Civil Proceeding raised certain allegations against her husband and she had pressed that, if the restitution is directed, the appellant (the husband) has to ensure peaceful conjugal life.

6. We can gather from the Judgment what the reason is behind the said condition. The purpose of the said condition cannot be contested. A part of the condition that the appellant will not be living with the family members in the place where the respondent will join him, in our considered view, the said condition is not in tune of the spirit of restitution of the conjugal rights. Hence, we are persuaded to intervene with the said condition.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is presently stationed at Sambalpur as the Senior Technician, Railways and he has the official residence there.

8. Mr. Chaudhury, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the son of the appellant and the respondent is studying in Behrampur and as such, it may cause dislocation and distraction in his studies. That is why the Judge, Family Court has directed to find a residence at Berhampur. True it is that the son may face difficulties temporarily in prosecuting his studies.

9. Having taken note of that aspect of the matter, we direct the respondent to join the appellant in his residence at Sambalpur or any other residence where the appellant will reside. We also direct the appellant to take due care to find out whether the son can be transferred to any other good school at Sambalpur. If it is not possible at this stage, he shall arrange a place of residence at Berhampur so that his son can continue his studies in the present school and complete his studies.

10. It is advisable that till the son completes the Secondary Examination, he shall be allowed to continue in the same school at Berhampur. Cost of the suitable accommodation and maintenance of the respondent and the son shall be borne by the appellant. We further clarify that the respondent and her son shall join the appellant at his residence at Sambalpur or any other place when the school will be in vacation.

11. We direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) as litigation cost and a lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) for

maintenance of the wife and the son by 30 days from today to the respondent.

12. Needless to say that the expenses of travelling, when there will be vacation in the school and their residing at Berhampur, school fees etc. shall be borne by the appellant. We are not determining the amount in as much as the same is the legal duty of the appellant.

13. In terms of the above, this appeal is partly allowed.

14. Draw the decree accordingly.

15. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, are disposed of.

(S. Talapatra) Judge

(Savitri Ratho) Judge Sangram