Orissa High Court

Jagannath Patro vs Seema Patrao And Others on 10 July, 2025

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                  MATA No. 5 of 2009
Arising out of judgment and order dated 13.01.2009 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.603 of 2004.
                              -----------
 Jagannath Patro                  ....                                Appellant

                                                         Represented By Adv. -
                                                         Mr. Amit Kumar Nath,
                                                                     Advocate
                                              -versus-

 Seema Patrao and others          ....                             Respondents

                                              Represented By Adv. -
                                       Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate
               Cross Appeal in MATA No. 05 of 2009
Arising out of judgment and order dated 13.01.2009 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.603 of 2004.
                               -----------
 Seema Patrao and others                   ....                     Appellant

                                                    Represented By Adv. -
                                               Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate
                                  -versus-

 Jagannath Patro                         ....                     Respondent
                                              Represented By Adv. -
                                     Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, Advocate
                        MATA No. 7 of 2009
Arising out of judgment and order dated 13.01.2009 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.727 of 2004.
                               -----------
 Jagannath Patro                           ....                       Appellant

                                                      Represented By Adv. -
                                             Mr. Amit Kumar Nath, Advocate
                                   -versus-

 Seema Patrao                             ....                      Respondent
                                                     Represented By Adv. -
                                                Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate
                                                                    Page 1 of 7
                  CORAM:
                 JUSTICE  DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                               AND
                 JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

                                          ORDER

10.07.2025 Order No.

41. 1. The appeals pending since last 15 years arise out of three

proceedings, those are C.P. No. 603 of 2004 filed under sections 18

and 20 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act by the respondents

(wife and children) before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack,

taken up by the learned Family Court along with Civil Proceeding

No.727 of 2004 filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

by the appellant-husband for restitution of conjugal rights and Civil

Proceeding No.750 of 2006 filed under Section 13 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 seeking decree of divorce by the respondent no.1-

wife.

2. Amongst the present appeals, i.e., MATA No.5 of 2009 filed

under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act brings into question, the

order passed in C.P. No.603 of 2004 granting maintenance. The

impugned order is quoted from the said judgment (order dated

13.01.2009) :

"The Civil Proceeding No.603/2004 is allowed on contest with cost. Respondent husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- per month to the daughter petitioner no.2

towards her maintenance till her marriage, a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the wife petitioner per month for her maintenance and separate residence and a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to the son petitioner towards his maintenance, study expenses till his majority. All these payments are to be made from the date of application i.e. 24.09.2004 subject to adjustment of interim maintenance already paid in the court."

3. Cross objection under Order XVI Rule 21 of the C.P.C. has

been filed by the respondents in MATA No. 5 of 2009, seeking

enhancement of the amount awarded as maintenance to them by the

impugned order dated 13.01.2009 as indicated above.

4. The other appeal MATA No.7 of 2009 being taken up

analogously has been filed challenging the self-same judgment and

order dated 13.01.2009 that dismissed Civil Proceeding No.727 of

2004 filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act

seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

5. C.P. No.750 of 2006 filed by wife was partly allowed

directing lump sum payment of marriage expenses to the daughter and

rejecting the prayer for decree of divorce made by the respondent

no.1-wife. The operative portion of the order in C.P.No.750 of 2006 is

quoted herein:

"...The Civil Proceeding No.750/2006 is decreed in part. Respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh) in the name of the daughter Annie Patro in shape of Bank Draft payable at S.B.I., Main Branch, Cuttack within two months towards the

marriage expenses of the daughter petitioner failing which penalty amount of Rs.8% will be charged per month on the marriage expenses till deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-. Respondent is directed to deposit lump sum study expenses of the daughter petitioner amounting Rs.3,00,000/- in shape of Bank Draft within two months since daughter petitioner prosecuted her Engineering Course at Coimbatore. So far as the prayer for decree of divorce the same is dismissed."

6. After issuance of notice in the year 2009 by this Court, upon

appearance of the respondents, the matter has been listed on several

dates. By order dated 02.04.2014 a co-ordinate bench directed the

matter to be placed for mediation before the mediator nominated by

the Court. Thereafter, the matter was listed on several dates and the

learned counsel for the respective parties did not appear. Vide order

no.19 dated 06.10.2015 a co-ordinate bench passed the following

order :

"After perusing the report of the mediator, we are of the opinion that this matrimonial appeal and the connected appeal, being MATA No.7 of 2009, have to be heard finally."

7. Being directed by a co-ordinate bench by order No.31 the

matter then travelled to the permanent and continuous Lok Adalat of

this Court, listed on several occasions starting with 29.11.2021. By

order No.38 the matter travelled back to the High Court to be listed

before the regular assigned Bench. The matter came to be listed before

this Bench on 07.07.2025 as a pending old matter, on which date this

Bench directed the appellant to be personally present on 08.07.2025.

8. The appellant appeared on 08.07.2025 and on the said date the

respondents were directed to be present in person on 10.07.2025.

Today on 10.07.2025, the appellant and the respondent no.1-wife are

present in person and were heard extensively. Learned counsel for the

appearing parties were also heard at length. After rather prolonged

interaction, being ably assisted by the learned counsel for the parties,

this Court has been able to persuade both the appellant and the

respondent no.1, who are senior citizens by now, not to live in their

past acrimony. Upon interaction with the parties present, it is clearly

evident that both the children, who are now grown up adults,

apparently earning sufficiently, have become the bridges between the

two estranged individuals. The respondent no.1-mother stays with the

respondent no.3-son at Bhubaneswar and also at times at Hyderabad

with the daughter respondent no.2.

The appellant stated before this Court regarding he having

kept money as well as gold jewelry for marriage of respondent no.2

daughter, who has not yet married but may do so in future as per her

choice. Two residential flats, one complete and occupied by the

appellant and another for which conveyance deed is yet to be made,

has been acquired by the appellant which he says will pass on to his

children.

9. After the parleys under the aegis of the Court, the parties have

agreed and have filed joint affidavit dated 10.07.2025 that will lead to

the order disposing of all the appeals. Para-1 of the affidavit is

reproduced herein :

"1. That we the Appellant and Respondent No.1 do hereby agree to close the Matrimonial dispute in MATA case No. 5 of 2009 on the following basis :-

(i) That the Appellant will pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees Twenty five thousand) only by 5th of every month to the 2nd party i.e. the Respondent No.1 Seema Patro towards maintenance. Failing which the Appellant will pay an interest of 1% per month on maintenance amount of defaulted month.

(ii) That both have agreed to withdraw the allegation against each other made in the Learned Court below and the Judicial separation will continue till death of either party." (sic)

The affidavit is taken on record.

10. Having considered the entire gamut of facts, the judgment

passed by the learned Family Court, age and present financial

condition of the parties, it is directed that appellant will pay a sum of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) only by 5th of every

month to the 2nd party i.e. the respondent No.1 Seema Patro towards

maintenance. For non-payment of any monthly instalment the

appellant will pay an interest of 1% per month on maintenance

amount of defaulted month.

It is observed that both parties have agreed to withdraw all the

allegations made against each other, in the pleadings/statements before

the learned court below and before this Court in the appeals those are