Orissa High Court
Amresh Pattnaik vs Chitra Rath on 11 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.162 of 2022
Amresh Pattnaik .... Appellant
Mr. Bikram Charan Ghadei, Advocate
-versus-
Chitra Rath .... Respondent
Mr. S. K. Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
11.10.2023
Order No.
09 1. The appeal has been called on for hearing. Mr. Ghadei, learned
advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and Mr. Mohanty,
learned advocate, for respondent-wife.
2. The appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 20th July,
2022 made by the Family Court. Direction by the judgment is
reproduced below.
"The matrimonial case is allowed on contest as per the
order below.
// 2 //
Judicial separation between the petitioner and
respondent instead of divorce at once is hereby ordered. If
in due course, the parties hereby manage to reconcile their
differences, the decree of judicial separation would be of
no consequence. On other hand, if the parties continue to
remain separate from each other, in that case, either of
both may seek dissolution of marriage on the basis of this
decree of Judicial Separation and in that event the question
of alimony shall also be decided. In the facts and
circumstances of the case there shall be no order so as to
cost.
A decree be drawn accordingly."
3. Mr. Ghadei demonstrates from impugned judgment that there
were clear findings on proof of grounds on clauses (i-a) and (i-b) under
sub-section (1) in section-13, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Inspite thereof
the Court below erred in making the direction for judicial separation.
The direction be set aside in appeal on dissolving the marriage.
4. With reference to, inter alia, order dated 6th July, 2023 made by
co-ordinate Bench Mr. Ghadei submits, his client has filed affidavit
dated 17th July, 2023 stating therein he is willing to pay Rs.5 lakhs for
the daughter, in addition to the monthly payment of Rs.4 thousand and
Rs.1 lakh as permanent alimony to respondent. He however submits,
both his client and respondent wife are teachers in the same grade and
drawing same salary. He submits further, it has been decided by the
// 3 //
Additional District Judge, Parlakhemundi in another case that where the
wife is working, she is not entitled to alimony. In the circumstances, his
client has been generous.
5. Mr. Mohanty submits, the monthly amount of Rs.4 thousand to
be paid by appellant for maintenance of the daughter is in arrears from
November, 2022.
6. Perused impugned judgment. On query from Court, on behalf of
respondent it could not be demonstrated that there was some basis on the
evidence laid before the Court below for directing judicial separation on
hope of re-conciliation. In the premises, we are convinced that the Court
below found good grounds on clauses (i-a) and (i-b) under sub-section
(1) in section 13. As such, appellant is entitled to decree for dissolution
of the marriage.
7. The marriage solemnized on 24th November, 2008 is dissolved.
Appellant will pay permanent alimony of Rs.1 lakh to respondent and
will make an interest bearing fixed deposit of Rs.5 lakhs in name of the
daughter under the best interest bearing scheme available in any
nationalized bank. The ultimate maturity date will be pursuant to the
daughter attaining majority. Nominee in the account will be respondent.
On obtaining the receipt, appellant will deposit it in the Registry for the
decree to be drawn up.
// 4 //
8. Impugned order is accordingly modified. Appellant will go on
paying Rs.4 thousand per month including liquidating the arrears along
with current up to 31st October, 2023 and thereafter pay at Rs.5 thousand
per month, till the daughter obtains employment or gets married or
willingly, after attaining majority, relinquishes the entitlement prior to
aforesaid contingencies.
9. The appeal is disposed of.
10.
( Arindam Sinha )
Judge
( S. S. Mishra )
Judge
Prasant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 12-Oct-2023 10:41:53
