Orissa High Court
Kajol Tripathy vs Shreetam Nanda on 4 August, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.269 of 2025
Kajol Tripathy .... Appellant
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Aswini Ku. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
Shreetam Nanda .... Respondent
Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 04.08.2025
(Hybrid mode)
02. 1. The matter was taken up on 31.07.2025 and the following
order was passed:-
"1.The appellant-wife challenges the order dated 05.05.2025
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court II, Bhubaneswar in
C.P. No. 893 of 2021 allowing petition filed by the respondent-
husband seeking dissolution of marriage u/s. 13(1)(i-a) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as rejecting the prayer for
restitution of conjugal rights made by the wife u/s.9 of the of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in C.P. No.159 of 2022.
2. Since the appellant has chosen to appear in person and
argue on the appeal, the matter being mentioned earlier, was
listed today for orders marked at 2.00 P.M.
When the matter is taken up, learned associate of Mr.
Aswini Kumar Das, advocate on record files memo of date and
submits that since the appellant wants to argue the matter in
person, their appearance may be ignored. Accordingly,
appearance of Mr. Aswini Kumar Das and associates be ignored.
Their names as counsel for appellant shall be deleted from the
case brief as well as the cause list from the next listing.
3. The appeal is taken up. The appellant appearing in person
was explained that the nature of appeal that involves several
legal niceties for which she has to read and understand Hindu
Marriage Act, Civil Procedure Code, Limitation Act as well as
the High Court Rules and procedure. Apparently, she has
difficulty in comprehending the complexities of law. When she
was requested to go through the operative portion of judgment
dated 05.05.2025, she says that she does not have the copy of the
brief. Further, it is stated by the appellant appearing in person
that I.A. No. 397 of 2025 that she has prayed for stay of the
judgment granting decree of divorce.
4. It has been explained to appellant appearing in person that
she has to seek advise regarding the legal consequences of the
appeal and adjacent I.As filed therein and the procedure for
accepting those prayers made in the I.A. and the orders that can
be passed.
5. As prayed for by the appellant, list for orders on 4.8.2025
marked at 10.30 A.M..
6. Memo dated 31.07.2025 filed by the learned counsel earlier
appearing for appellant is taken on record."
As would be apparent from the order quoted above, the
appellant wanted to argue the matter on her own and disengaged
her learned counsel. Accordingly, memo was filed by Mrs.
M. Bhagat on behalf of the counsel who were appearing earlier and
their appearance was deleted.
2. The appellant thereafter argued the matter for some time
and after it was explained by the Court regarding legal aspects
while she was arguing the matter, she sought for adjournment that
was granted. As she was appearing in person the matter was
directed to be taken up on the next date i.e. today at 10.30 AM.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up Mr. A.K. Das, learned
counsel and Mrs. M. Bhagat, learned counsel are present. They
submit that the appellant has again instructed them to appear on
her behalf. Vakalatnama executed by the appellant dated 4 th
August, 2025 is filed today in Court. The same shall be taken on
record, scanned copy be updated. Name of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of appellant shall be reflected on case brief
and cause list.
4. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. The
appeal has been filed by the wife-appellant, challenging the
judgment dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Bhubaneswar in Civil Proceeding No.893 of 2021 along
with Civil Proceeding No.159 of 2022 wherein, the petition filed
by the respondent-husband under Section-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed and the petition filed by the
appellant-wife under Section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for
restitution of conjugal rights was rejected. There has been a further
direction for payment of permanent alimony for an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- to the wife-appellant.
5. The appeal has been filed after brooking a reported delay
of 33 days.
6. Issue notice on the appeal as well as the I.A.
7. Ms. D. Mahapatra, learned counsel submits that she has
instruction to appear on behalf the respondent-husband. She further
submits that duly executed Vakalatnama on behalf of the
respondent shall be filed within seven working days.
No further notice be issued to the respondent. Copy of the
appeal memo and the IA along with all the annexures be handed
over to Ms. Mahapatra, learned counsel for the respondent.
List this matter on 19th August, 2025.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge.
Narayan/Ranjeeta
