Orissa High Court
Anar Chowdhury vs Sidhartha Nayak on 23 July, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.109 of 2022
Anar Chowdhury .... Appellant
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. B. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Sidhartha Nayak .... Respondent
Represented by Adv.-
Ms. D. Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
23.07.2025
I.A. No.381 of 2024
Order No.
05. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to press this
application for amendment.
In view of above, the I.A. stands disposed of as not pressed.
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Order No.
06. 1. Since both the husband & wife have got their marriage dissolved
and there is no challenge to the dissolution as such. The claim of the wife
is for the return of gold ornaments allegedly given at the time of marriage.
2. The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-wife that once dissolution of marriage takes place, as a matter of
course, learned Family Judge ought to have made a decree for return of
gold ornaments, is difficult to agree with and reasons for that are not far to
seek: Firstly, in the pleadings, except stating that the wife was bedecked
with ornaments at the time when the marriage took place, no material
particulars of such ornaments have been given in the petition. Secondly,
there is no prayer for return of these ornaments at all. Thirdly, the
contention that full particulars have been given in the depositions would
fall to the ground, inasmuch as in the absence of plea, evidence pales into
insignificance.
3. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the appellant-wife
that in more or less similar fact matrix the Apex Court in Maya
Gopinathan v. Anoop S.B., 2024 INSC 334, has made observations in
favour of the wife and that would come to his aid, is bit difficult to
countenance. In the said case, there were complete pleadings as to what
the ornaments were and there was a prayer for decree for return of the said
ornaments. It hardly needs to be stated that a case is an authority for the
proposition laid down in the given fact matrix and not for all that which
logically follows from what has been so laid down.
4. Had the wife been a member of a down trodden class or a labourer
or an agriculturist or at least hailing from rural background, we would
have lent some leniency to her case. That is not so. She is highly educated
and is employed abroad and she has chosen a lawyer of repute to represent
her in the legal battle.
In the above circumstances, appeal being devoid of merits is liable
to be and accordingly rejected, costs having been made easy.
However, this judgment does not come in the way of Appellant
pursuing remedies elsewhere in accordance with law. In that connection,
all contentions are kept open.
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Prasant
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO
Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 23-Jul-2025 20:03:42
