Pradyumna Kumar Jena vs Laxmipriya Jena
2024 Latest Caselaw 16173 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pradyumna Kumar Jena vs Laxmipriya Jena on 4 November, 2024

Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S.Sahoo

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            MATA No.73 of 2017
Pradyumna Kumar Jena                .....                            Appellant

                                                         Represented by Adv.-
                                                        Mr. B. Baug, Advocate

                                   -versus-
Laxmipriya Jena                     .....                          Respondent

                                                         Represented by Adv.-
                                                 Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate

                            MATA No.79 of 2017
Laxmipriya Jena                     .....                            Appellant

                                                         Represented by Adv.-
                                                    Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate

                                   -versus-
Pradyumna Kumar Jena                .....                          Respondent

                                                         Represented by Adv.-
                                                        Mr. B. Baug, Advocate

                                  CORAM:
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                     AND
                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
                                  ORDER

04.11.2024 Order No.

20. 1. Mr. Baug, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant, who

is the elder son and aggrieved by judgment dated 9th May, 2017, by

which the Family Court directed payment of maintenance to his

mother. He submits, his father had worked as Professor in Utkal

University. He retired with terminal benefits and ultimately died on 7 th

February, 2022. His mother is getting family pension. Younger

brother of his client has taken away his mother from his client. In

respect of property there has been suit filed, purportedly by his mother

but actually at instance of the younger brother. He is a practicing

advocate in Balasore Court. He is the one behind the litigation,

claiming to be unemployed.

2. On perusal of petition filed by respondent, it appears she had

claimed maintenance only from appellant. She said that her younger

son is unemployed and separated from her. Though her husband was

alive at the time of filing the petition, he was undergoing treatment

and therefore unable to maintain her. She made clear assertion that she

had no immovable property standing in her name.

3. Mr. Baug draws attention to application filed by his client (I.A.

no.13 of 2024), in which stands disclosed unregistered will dated 3rd

August, 2015 made by appellant. By it she bequeathed immovable

property to her grandson from her younger son. On query made Mr.

Baug submits, acquisition of the property is shown, inter alia, by

deeds dated 16th January, 1959 and 21st May, 1963. He submits

further, sale deeds were executed by his mother in favour of himself

and his brother. He reiterates, at instance of younger brother of his

client, suit was filed for cancellation of the sale deeds and the will

executed.

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

respondent. His client is to consider her position regarding her

statements made in the petition, in only claiming from appellant.

Furthermore, if her statement in the petition that she did not have

immovable property is correct then her suit is likely to fail. On the

other hand, if her statement on property is in-correct, we will require,

inter alia, the will disclosed by said application as additional evidence

in the appeal, for purpose of delivering judgment.

5. The appeal will be further heard on 26th November, 2024.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(M.S. Sahoo) Judge

Radha/Gs