Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15135 Ori
Judgement Date : 28 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMAPL NO.237 OF 2014
Sasmita Parija @ Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Hemanta Kumar Mohanty
.... Opp. Party
Ms. P. Pattnaik, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 28.11.2023
6. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. This CMAPL has been filed by the petitioner Sasmita Parija @ Mohanty, who was the appellant in MATA No.15 of 2012, for restoration of the file for hearing in the interest of justice.
Needless to say that the husband-Opposite Party, Hemanta Kumar Mohanty filed a divorce petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, which was registered as C.P. No.206 of 2006 for divorce and the prayer was allowed vide by the // 2 //
judgment and order dated 04.01.2012. The petitioner- wife challenged the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack before this Court in the aforesaid MATA No.15 of 2012, which was dismissed for non-prosecution as per the order of this Court dated 09.09.2014. Though this application for restoration was filed in the year 2014, as it appears, no sincere step has been taken for listing of the matter and after 13.04.2015, no order has been passed in this petition.
Learned counsel for the opposite party-husband submits that after dismissal of the MATA as per the order dated 09.09.2014, the opposite party has re-married to another lady and he is now blessed with a child and as per the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in the divorce proceeding, he has deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh) towards permanent alimony, as awarded and she has instruction that the petitioner has received the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh), which was awarded to the petitioner towards permanent alimony, is a meager amount and it is very difficult on the part of the petitioner to maintain her livelihood with such amount and at least the amount should be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the opposite party opposes
// 3 //
such prayer.
During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the provision under section 25(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, she can get the relief sought for here towards enhancement of the permanent alimony fixed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack before the said Court. He seeks permission to withdraw the CMAPL to seek appropriate remedy before the competent Court.
In view of such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the CMAPL is disposed of as withdrawn.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
M.K.Rout
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!