Orissa High Court
Sri Gurunath Sahu vs Smt. Sumati Sahu on 2 April, 2025
Bench: B. P. Routray, Chittaranjan Dash
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 04-Apr-2025 16:38:54
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.3 of 2012, MATA No.18 of 2012, MATA No.66 of
2012 & MATA No.43 of 2017
In MATA No.3 of 2012
Sri Gurunath Sahu .... Appellant
Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate
-versus-
Smt. Sumati Sahu .... Respondent
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate
In MATA No.18 of 2012
Sri Gurunath Sahu .... Appellant
Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate
-versus-
Smt. Sumati Sahu and another .... Respondents
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate
In MATA No.66 of 2012
Sri Gurunath Sahu .... Appellant
Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate
-versus-
Smt. Sumati Sahu and another .... Respondents
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate
In MATA No.43 of 2017
Smt. Sumati Sahu and another .... Appellants
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate
-versus-
Sri Gurunath Sahu .... Respondent
Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
02.04.2025
Order No.
31. 1. Heard Mr. L.K. Maharana, learned counsel for the Husband
and Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the Wife.
Designation: Personal Assistant
2. Both the husband and wife are present in person. The
husband is aged about 63 years and the wife is aged 53 years.
3. Above four appeals have been filed against the impugned
judgment and order passed in Civil Proceeding (C.P.) No.18 of
2010, C.P. No.74 of 2010 and C.P. No.305 of 2011.
4. MATA No.66 of 2012 has been filed challenging order dated
27th April, 2012 of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur
passed in C.P. No.305 of 2011, wherein the husband was directed
to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- in favour of wife and
Rs.5000/- in favour of the daughter under Section 18 and 20 of
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
MATA No.3 of 2012, 18 of 2012 and 43 of 2017 have been
filed challenging the common judgment dated 3rd December,
2011 of learned Family Judge, Berhampur passed in C.P. No.18
of 2010 and C.P. No.74 of 2010. Civil Proceeding No.18 of 2010
was filed by the wife praying for judicial separation under Section
10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and C.P. No.74 of 2010 was filed
by the husband praying for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act. In the common impugned judgment, the
learned Judge, Family Court, while refusing to grant either
judicial separation as prayed by the wife or decree of divorce as
prayed by the husband, has directed for payment of maintenance
of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the wife and Rs.3000/- in favour of
the daughter, which were subsequently enhanced to Rs.15,000/-
and Rs.5000/- respectively in order dated 27th April, 2012 passed
in C.P. No.305 of 2011.
Designation: Personal Assistant
5. Considering the age of the parties we directed personal
appearance of the parties with a hope for reunion. Being asked in
court, the wife expressed her willingness to stay with the
husband. But the husband refused to stay with the wife and
daughter. We fail in our attempt for reunion upon further
communication with both parties in the open court and seeing the
determination on the part of the husband not to stay together.
6. It is true that the wife had earlier filed the proceeding before
learned Family Judge for judicial separation and upon refusal of
the same present MATA No.43 of 2017 has been filed
challenging the judgement. However, it is stated by the wife in
open court that she was misguided to file judicial separation
though her intention was to stay together with the husband along
with their daughter.
7. In course of hearing it is further surfaced that one proceeding
under PWDV Act has been filed by the wife wherein a sum of
Rs.8000/- has been directed by the learned court in favour of the
wife to be paid by the husband and the matter is still sub-judice
before learned SDJM, Berhampur being remanded by the
Sessions Court, Berhampur. It is further surfaced that two other
proceedings in C.P. No.4 of 2021 and C.P. No.6 of 2021 filed by
the daughter and wife respectively against the husband for
enhancement of the maintenance amount and other reliefs are
pending.
8. The husband has served as Deputy General Manager in
NALCO and retired in August, 2022. The wife and daughter have
Designation: Personal Assistant
no independent source of income. The daughter has attended the
marriageable age.
9. Upon deliberating with the parties in person and hearing
learned respective counsels and taking note of their age, socio
economic status, circumstances and places of residence that the
husband is residing at Bhubaneswar and the wife and daughter are
at Berhampur, we deem it fit to grant judicial separation between
the husband and wife in terms of Section 10 of the Hindu
Marriage Act with direction for payment of permanent alimony of
Rs.40,00,000/- (forty lakhs) in favour of the wife to be paid by
the husband. The parties, namely Gurunath Sahu and Sumati
Sahu are judicially separated from each other with effect from
today. It is worth mentioning here that, the prayer of the husband
for decree of divorce at this age of the parties is found for mere
satisfaction of his ego as the same would bring no fruitful purpose
except casting social stigma on the part of the wife.
10. The husband is further directed to pay a sum of
Rs.30,00,000/- (thirty lakhs) in favour of the daughter namely,
Sudha Suman Sahu towards her marriage and other expenses. The
amounts directed above to be deposited before learned Judge,
Family Court within a period of two months from today by the
husband. Failing to deposit the same by the husband, the wife and
daughter are at liberty to execute the same in accordance with
law.
11. In the result all the appeals are disposed of in terms of above
direction with grant of decree for judicial separation.
Designation: Personal Assistant
12. In view of this order the wife and daughter are at liberty to
take steps in accordance with law for withdrawal of C.P. No.4 of
2021 and C.P. No.6 of 2021. The wife further undertakes to take
steps for withdrawal of the proceeding under PWDV Act pending
before learned SDJM, Berhampur.
13. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion with
regard to arrear maintenance which is liable to be paid by the
husband till today.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
M.K. Panda
