Orissa High Court
Parbati Sahoo vs Dillip Kumar Pal on 9 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.63 of 2023
Parbati Sahoo .. .... Appellant
Ms. J. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
Dillip Kumar Pal ... Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
09.05.2023
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. J. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant.
3. By means of this appeal under Section 19(1) of the
Family Courts Act, the judgment dated 12.07.2022 delivered
in MATA (C.P.) Case No.25 of 2021 by the Senior Civil
Judge, Banki, District-Cuttack has been challenged.
4. By the said judgment, the marriage that was
subsisting between the parties was declared dissolved and
decree of divorce has been issued. It was pleaded before the
Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division that the parties had
entered into a compromise agreement for divorce which was
executed on 29.12.1993 before the Notary and thereafter, both
the parties got married to different individuals. It has been
stated by the Appellant that at the instigation of her second
husband, he filed one suit under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act being C.P. No.404 of 2011 in
which the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar awarded a
monthly maintenance to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and
Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the daughter of the Appellant. Later
the Respondent filed a appeal before this Court being MATA
No.33 of 2016 challenging the said order of maintenance
dated 01.08.2011. By the order dated 06.08.2019, the order of
maintenance was set aside by this Court on the statement
made by the daughter that she did not require any maintenance
at all. The Respondent filed the suit seeking the dissolution of
marriage by disclosing the fact that on 29.12.1993, the
agreement of divorce has struck between the parties. The Civil
Judge, Senior Division held that the relationship between the
parties has broken down and there is no possibility of
reconciliation between them. On the ground of cruelty and
desertion for a prolonged period of time, which is about 22
years, the impugned judgment has been passed dissolving the
marriage.
5. By means of this appeal, the said judgment has been
challenged for a very limited purpose. The purpose as
gathered from the narration of the appeal is that the dissolution
of marriage should have the effect from an anterior date i.e.
29.12.1993 when the purported deed of divorce was executed.
The Appellant has asserted in Paragraph-15 of the
memorandum of appeal as follows:
"15. That the 2nd husband namely Laxman Marandi,
who is the petitioner in CrlMP No.2212/2021 trying to
utilize this order to cheat the petitioner and saying for
her 1st husband has given divorce in the year 2022. So,
his marriage which has been solemnized with the
petitioner before the temple Goddess Maa Biraja
Temple on 17.10.2009 is null and void and he has also
filed the petition U/S-11 r/w section-5 (1) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 for the decree of nullity of the
marriage."
Faced with such situation, the Appellant has
approached this Court praying to set aside the decree of
divorce. This appeal is not maintainable as against the
judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, no appeal can lie under Section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act. That apart, the appeal is barred by delay of 151
days and there is no application containing good causes for
condoning the delay.
6. On scrutiny, we find no merit in the appeal and as
such, no purpose will be served, if the scope is granted to the
Appellant to file application for seeking condonation of delay.
What has happened with or without legal knowledge, legal
consequences cannot be effaced by challenging the said
judgment. Moreover, the Appellant has urged by implication
that the agreement of divorce be given a legal status. This
cannot extend its jurisdiction for that purpose. The said cause,
LITARAM Digitally signed by
LITARAM MURMU
MURMU Date: 2023.05.09
19:22:05 +05'30' is beyond the scope of the matrimonial suit for dissolution of
marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent.
7. The cumulative effect of all these observations is that,
this appeal is to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.
8. The Registry is directed to prepare the decree.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
