Orissa High Court
Pranati Mishra vs Chandra Sekhar Tripathy on 13 January, 2025
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
I.A. no.578 of 2024
(Arising out of MATA No.53 of 2009)
Pranati Mishra .... Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Mrs. S. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Chandra Sekhar Tripathy .... Respondent
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sarat Ch. Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
13.01.2025
Order No.
24. 1. The disposed of appeal has been listed under heading 'To Be
Mentioned' pursuant to direction made in order dated 6th January,
2025.
2. The appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 4th November,
2024. Impugned therein judgment dated 26th August, 2009 granting
divorce was modified in respect of permanent alimony. Direction was
for payment of aggregate ₹13,50,000/- as permanent alimony and
maintenance for appellant and her daughter.
// 2 //
3. For compliance we had directed the appeal to be listed as 'To
be Mentioned' on 25th November, 2024. We reproduce below
paragraph-3 from order dated 25th November, 2024.
"3. Mrs. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of
appellant and submits, her client is not satisfied with
direction in our judgment. In the circumstances, the
drafts are returned to Mr. Dash as there cannot be record
of execution, discharge or satisfaction of the direction.
Respondent will be well advised to deposit the aggregate
in a short term interest bearing deposit account and keep
it renewed for purpose of tender in execution. Since, the
drafts are being returned to respondent, the issuing bank
is expected to repatriate the money (aggregate amount) to
respondent's account on presentation of the instruments.
This is because the drafts were obtained for compliance
of direction in our said judgment but respondent is
aggrieved thereby. Issuing charges have been had by the
bank and hence, we expect co-operation. Respondent has
liberty to produce website copy of this order to the
issuing bank.
Accordingly, the demand drafts were returned to Mr. Dash, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of respondent. Appellant then came back
and said she wanted to accept the monies. For purpose of being
assured we requireD presence of appellant and production of the short
// 3 //
term deposit receipt said to have been made by respondent, upon
aggregate value OF the demand drafts, repatriated to him.
4. Mr. Dash hands up term deposit advice dated 29th November,
2024 for principal sum ₹10,00,000/-, maturity date 16th February, 2026
for value ₹10,91,356/-. Mrs. Das submits, her client is present in Court
and confirms her willingness to accept the amount.
5. Earlier we had required respondent to produce demand drafts
so that appellant would receive immediately, what we had directed in
modification. On appellant's refusal, the money was returned and
respondent has converted the proceeds to a term deposit. It will take
time for prematurely encashing the term deposit and making out fresh
demand drafts in favour of appellant and the daughter. There is no
certainty that appellant will stick to her position. In the circumstances,
we will not further venture to achieve closure of the matter. Appellant
is at liberty to find her remedy, whether by appeal or by execution.
The term deposit receipt is returned to Mr. Dash.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI (M.S. Sahoo)
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication Judge
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 13-Jan-2025 18:20:21
Sks
