Priyanka Behera @ Priti vs Narasingh Behera
2023 Latest Caselaw 12554 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 MATA No.98 of 2022

            Priyanka Behera @ Priti                ....                     Appellant

                                                              Ms. A. Ray, Advocate

                                            -versus-

            Narasingh Behera                       ....                   Respondent

                                                           Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate

            CORAM:
                          JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                          JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
                                         ORDER

12.10.2023

MATA No.98 of 2022 and I.A. no.115 of 2022 Order No.

03. 1. Ms. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-

wife. She submits, her client has preferred the appeal against ex-parte

judgment dated 25th February, 2022 made by the Family Court. By

impugned judgment the marriage was dissolved.

2. The civil proceeding was filed before Family Court,

Berhampur. Her client having been driven away from the matrimonial

home, was at that time residing in her parental home in district,

Malkangir. It was physically not possible for her to contest the

// 2 //

proceeding. Moreover, respondent-husband was and is working as an

employee of that Court. Hence, her client has preferred the appeal.

3. Ms. Ray submits further, in between appellant filed a transfer

petition before this Court, presented on 5th January, 2022. The petition

could be moved before the learned single Judge on 23rd Mach, 2022

but by that time impugned judgment had already been made on 25th

February, 2022. Appellant does not have employment and there is a

minor child, one year old, with her. By impugned judgment paltry

sum of Rs.2 lakhs was directed to be paid as permanent alimony.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of

respondent-wife. Notice was issued in the civil proceeding. Appellant

did not appear inspite thereof. In the circumstances, impugned

judgment was made on basis of evidence adduced by his client. There

is no error in the judgment for interference in appeal. He submits, his

client duly got re-married

5. There do not appear to be any dispute regarding geographical

separation between appellant-wife and respondent-husband, at the

time the civil proceeding was disposed of on impugned judgment. We

notice, it was filed in year, 2021. On query from Court Mr. Mishra

submits, the civil proceeding was presented to the Court on 16th July,

// 3 //

2021. Issuance of notice, hearing and judgment happened by 25th

February, 2022. The speed with which the matter was dealt with is

commendable.

6. In the meantime, there is no dispute that appellant had

approached this Court for transfer of the case. Her disinclination to

make the effort and appear in the civil proceeding is understandable,

both from point of physical distance that she had to undertake on

travel and apprehension of bias against her. The apprehension may

have been unfounded but she cannot be faulted to have apprehended

as such.

7. Hearing of the appeal is adjourned on prayer of Mr. Mishra.

Respondent's status, however, will remain as on date, to be un-altered

hereinafter till disposal of the appeal.

8. List on 15th November, 2023.

9.

                                                                    ( Arindam Sinha )
                                                                          Judge


                                                                     ( S. S. Mishra )
Signature Not Verified                                                   Judge
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 12-Oct-2023 16:38:10
   Prasant