Prajna Paramita Praharaj vs Devi Prasad Samantaray .... Opposite
2025 Latest Caselaw 3044 Ori

Orissa High Court

Prajna Paramita Praharaj vs Devi Prasad Samantaray .... Opposite on 29 January, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025

  (In the matter of an application Under Articles 226 & 227
  of the Constitution of India)

   Prajna Paramita Praharaj             ....        Petitioner
                      -versus-
   Devi Prasad Samantaray               ....         Opposite
                                                      Party


   For Petitioner      :   Mr. S. Das, Advocate

   For Opposite        : Mrs. K. Patra, Advocate
   Parties


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.01.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Grieved by the impugned order dated

10.12.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court-II,

Bhubaneswar in CP No. 31 of 2016 refusing to reject the

petition dated 04.10.2024 filed by the writ Petitioner-wife

in an application U/O. VII, Rule-11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (In short the "CPC"), the Petitioner-wife

has challenged such order before this Court in the writ

petition by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the

Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of

India.

2. The facts in precise are that the Petitioner and

OP fell in love with each other during the years of their

studies and in order to give recognition of their courtship,

on 07.04.2006, they got their relationship recognized by

registering their marriage before the Marriage Officer at

Puri under the provision of Sec. 13 of Special Marriage

Act, 1954. However, an untoward incident occurred in the

parental house of the Petitioner on 21.07.2008 leading to

death of a person, for which, the Petitioner and her

parents were arrested for the charge of murder, but

subsequently they got released on bail. While the matter

stood thus, in the month of June, 2009, the Petitioner

and the OP got themselves again married according to

Hindu Custom and Rituals with consent and knowledge of

family members of the respective parties. After staying

for some days at in-laws' house, dissension arose

between the Petitioner and the OP and it was alleged by

the Petitioner that the OP had driven her out of

matrimonial house. While the matter stood thus, on

30.3.2015, the Petitioner was convicted by the learned

Sessions Judge, Jajpur in CT Case No. 76 of 2010 for the

charge of murder and she was sentenced to life

imprisonment along with other sentence, but the

Petitioner became successful in the appeal in CRLA No.

202 of 2015, wherein the High Court by a judgment dated

08.11.2016 acquitted the Petitioner for the charge of

murder, however, claiming infidelity of the Petitioner and

accusing her to have committed murder of her paramour

with the allegation of adultery, the OP-husband has filed

a petition before the learned Judge, Family Court,

Bhubaneswar for dissolution of their marriage which has

been registered as Civil Proceeding No. 31 of 2016,

wherein the Petitioner has filed an application U/O. VII R-

11 of the CPC for rejection of petition on the ground that

the petition for dissolution of marriage does not disclose

any cause of action, but such petition was ultimately

rejected, however, being aggrieved, the Petitioner

preferred a writ petition in WP(C) No. 21596 of 2024

before this Court. In disposal of the said writ petition, this

Court while not expressing any opinion on merits granted

leave to the Petitioner to file a better application U/O VII,

R-11 of the CPC stating specific grounds therein and

directed the concerned Court to consider the same after

giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

Accordingly, the present Petitioner filed another

application U/O. VII R-11 of the CPC to reject the petition

for dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP which came

to be rejected by the impugned order giving rise to the

present writ petition challenging such order.

3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Sashibhusan Das,

learned counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the

facts submits that the learned trial Court without

adverting to the matters on merit has simply relied upon

two decisions which are not applicable to this case and

passed the impugned order refusing to reject the petition

of OP for dissolution of marriage, but fact remains that

the petition of the OP does not disclose any cause of

action and thereby, such petition for dissolution of

marriage as filed by the OP-husband is liable to be

rejected. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Das prays to

allow the writ petition to drop the Civil Proceeding No. 31

of 2016.

3.1. On the contrary, Mrs. Kabita Patra, learned

counsel for the OP while refuting the submission as

advanced for the Petitioner emphatically submits that not

only the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the

husband-OP discloses cause of action, but also the

present Petitioner-wife is protracting the litigation by

filing one after another application for the selfsame relief

which was earlier rightly turned down by the learned trial

Court. It is further submitted by Mrs. Patra that the

decisions relied on by the learned trial Court is perfectly

on the point of law and applicable to this case and,

therefore, the impugned order having been passed on

sound discretion of law needs no interference. On the

aforesaid submission, Mrs. Patra prays to dismiss the writ

petition.

4. After having considered the rival submissions

upon perusal of the record, there appears no dispute

about the learned trial Court refusing to reject the

petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP-

husband by the impugned order which is under

challenged in this writ petition, but the submission as

advanced for the Petitioner-wife only relates to the

challenge of the impugned order on the ground that the

petition for dissolution of marriage having not disclosed

any cause of action is liable to be rejected. In essence,

the Petitioner-wife seeks for rejection of the petition for

dissolution of marriage on the very ground that it does

not disclose any cause of action in terms of U/O. VII R-

11(a) of the CPC. It is no more res integra that while

deciding a petition for rejection of plaint/petition in the

nature of plaint, the Court has to only refer to the

averments/pleadings of the plaint/petition in the nature

of plaint, but it is not required by the Court to peruse/go

through the defence of the other side for the aforesaid

purpose. Looking at the averments of the petition for

dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP-husband

carefully, it appears that OP-husband has filed the

petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of

adultery of the Petitioner-wife and the cruelty inflicted by

her which are two valid grounds as contemplated U/S. 13

of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the grant or refusal of

decree of divorce by the Court concerned is subject to

proof of such adultery or cruelty. However, the Court at

this stage of deciding the rejection of plaint/petition in the

nature of the plaint U/O. VII R-11 of the CPC is not

required to analyze the evidence and document produced

by the parties and the Court is only required to go

through the averments made in the plaint/petition to find

out as to whether the cause of action for the relief

claimed has been averred/pleaded in the plaint. Once the

Court is satisfied that there are pleadings/averments

sufficient to indicate the cause of action for bringing the

suit/proceeding, such plaint/ petition in the nature of the

plaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold.

5. In this case, especially when there is sufficient

pleadings for claim of the relief for dissolution of marriage

on the ground of adultery and cruelty, which are

recognized by Hindu Marriage Act to be valid grounds for

grant of divorce, it cannot be said that the petition for

dissolution of marriage as filed by OP-husband does not

disclose any cause of action so as to reject such petition

at the threshold. It is of course argued by learned counsel

for the Petitioner that the decision in Srihari

Hanumandas Totala Vrs. Hemant Vithal Kamat;

(2021) 9 SCC 99 is not applicable to the case at hand,

but the fact remains that the principles as culled out

therein are quite applicable to the present case inasmuch

as prima facie cause of action is disclosed on a bare

perusal of the averments made in the petition for

dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP-husband. In

this background, this Court considers that the learned

trial Court has rightly adjudicated the issue and refused

to reject the petition of the OP-husband seeking the

remedy of divorce for dissolution of marriage, but the OP-

husband has to establish such grounds for getting the

relief, nonetheless the petition of the OP-husband seeking

remedy of divorce from Petitioner-wife having prima facie

disclosed the cause of action as required U/O. VII R-11(a)

of the CPC, the impugned order cannot be interfered with

nor is it liable to be modified.

6. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of

merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the

circumstance, there is no order as to costs.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOODated the 29th January, 2025/Priyajit Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 31-Jan-2025 16:15:40