[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mamata Sahoo vs Aswini Kumar Sahoo ....... Opposite ... on 12 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
WP(C) No.23655 of 2025
Mamata Sahoo ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
Aswini Kumar Sahoo ....... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. R. K. Nayak, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. A. N. Das, Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 12.12.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. MISHRA, J.
The present writ petition has been preferred by the
Petitioner-wife, who is the Opposite Party in CP No.93 of 2019.
2. Impugned is the order dated 15.07.2025, passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, vide which her application
filed under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC, read with Section 10 of
the Family Courts Act for impleading one Lopamudra Nayak as
party to the said proceeding stood rejected recording the
following reasons:-
"I have heard both the parties at length. Perused the
records and connected materials available with it. On
perusal of the petition for divorce filed by the
petitioner/husband, it reveals that he has filed the
petition with a prayer for dissolution of marriage dtd
13.07.2004 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The
petitioner/husband specifically mentioned the grounds
of divorce in para No. 14 of his petition. That apart, the
respondent/wife has not made any counter claim
against the petitioner/husband. Court has power to
direct a person to be made as a party to a case if such a
person is a necessary party or that the Court feels the
necessity of impleading him with a view to adjudicate
upon all the questions involved in the case. The
question involved in the case would mean, the
questions concerning the parties to the case and not
with the questions concerning third party. The
Court may have power to strike out the name of a
party improperly joined or add a party either on
application or without application of either party
but the condition precedent is that the Court must
be satisfied that the presence of the party to be
added would be necessary in order to enable the
Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon
and settled all questions involved in the case. In the
instant case, the original petition has been filed by
the petitioner/husband against his wife/respondent
seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty
and desertion. So the husband has not taken specific
ground of adultery against the respondent seeking a
decree of divorce. Therefore filing of such a petition
by the respondent/wife deserves no positive
consideration, as such the same stands rejected."
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Though no Counter has been filed till date opposing
to the prayer made in the writ petition, on consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties and permitting the Opposite
Party- husband to have his oral objection to the prayer made
in the writ petition, the matter is taken up for hearing and
disposal at the stage of admission.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing
attention of this Court to the observations made in the
impugned order submits, the Petitioner, who is the Opposite
Party in CP No.93 of 2019, has categorically taken a stand
in her Written Statement that the Petitioner-husband in CP
No.93 of 2019 is staying in adultery with one of his office co-
staff namely Lopamudra Nayak. Hence, she was justified in
filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to
implead her as a party to the said proceeding. He further
submits, despite making a specific averment to the said
effect in the written statement, the learned Court below has
incorrectly observed that the respondent/wife has not made
any counter claim against the Petitioner/husband.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-
husband submits, the learned Court below was justified to
reject such an application, as the Opposite Party never took
such a stand of adultery in CP No.93 of 2019 seeking for a
decree of divorce on such ground. Rather, the grounds to
seek a decree of divorce are cruelty and desertion. Hence,
the learned Court below was justified in rejecting such
application.
6. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-
husband, files a website copy of order dated 02.09.2025
passed in TRP(C) No.283 of 2025 by this Court and submits,
at the instance of the present Petitioner, not only prayer for
transfer of proceeding in CP No.984 of 2021 from the Court
of learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar to the learned
Judge, Family Court, Cuttack was allowed, but also a
direction has been given by this Court for analogous hearing
of CP No.93 of 2019 with CP No.984 of 2021, with a further
direction to conclude both the proceedings at the earliest,
preferably within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of the record in CP No.984 of 2021. Since the
Petitioner-wife has also preferred CP No.984 of 2021 under
Section-9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of
conjugal rights, which has been renumbered as CP No.683
of 2025, and this Court has directed analogous hearing of
both proceedings, she can very well prove her stand by
leading evidence before the learned Court below.
7. After taking note of the averments made in the writ
petition so also submissions made by the learned Counsel
for the parties and the reasons assigned by the learned
Court below, to reject the application filed by the Petitioner-
wife under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, this Court is of the view
that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The learned
Court below has rightly rejected the said petition with an
observation that CP No.93 of 2019 has been preferred by the
petitioner/husband against his wife/respondent seeking a
decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. As
the husband has not taken specific ground of adultery
against the Respondent seeking a decree of divorce,
therefore, filing of such a petition by the respondent/wife
deserves no positive consideration.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
10. Urgent certified copy be granted on proper
application as per rules.
..............................
S.K. Mishra, J.
SignatureOrissa
Not Verified
High Court, Cuttack.
Digitally Signed Dated, 12th December, 2025/ Mona
Signed by: MONALISA SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 13-Dec-2025 17:15:09
