Orissa High Court
Babaji Ch. Rout vs Bandana Rout on 14 October, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 47 of 2015
Babaji Ch. Rout .... Appellant
Represented by -
Mr. Biraja Prasanna Das, Advocate
-Versus-
Bandana Rout .... Respondent
Represented by -
Mr. Bibhu Prasad Das, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 14.10.2025
11. 1. Pursuant to our order dated 17th September, 2025, the
Superintendent of Police, Kendrapara as well as the I.I.C., Rajkanika
P.S. have taken steps for serving notice on the appellant for his
appearance before this Court and that has ensured presence of the
appellant in person.
2. Learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara, by his letter dated
28.09.2025 has intimated this Court that Execution Case No.03 of 2016
arising out of C.P. No.424 of 2009 (renumbered as C.P. No.216/2013)
could not proceed further due to non-furnishing of Bank Account Details
of Bandana Rout and intimation could not be sent to the Pension
Sanctioning Authority of Babaji Charan Rout for deduction of marriage
expenses of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh).
Learned Judge, Family Court shall intimate this Court by the next
date as to when the Executing Court had directed the Petitioner in the
Execution Case to furnish the details of the Bank Account and by which
order, whether the said order was passed in presence of the learned
counsel for the Decree-holder and whether the said order was intimated
to the Decree-holder for furnishing her Bank Account details.
3. In the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Kendrapara in C.P. Execution No.03 of 2016, though there is
specific direction to produce the Pension Papers, Bank Account details
and indicate about the authority who has sanctioned the pension, today in
court the appellant through his counsel has filed copy of the Aadhar,
page-13 of some document, copy of one page of Savings Bank Account
of the SBI and a rather illegible photo copy of Corrigendum Pension
Payment Order, PPO Number - 240201400699, e-PPO Number -
180201402838. On being prodded by the Court, the appellant goes out of
the court for about 15 minutes and comes back and produces the original
of the Pension Payment Order that has been issued by the Office of the
Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Prayagraj
(Allahabad).
The details of the papers furnished by the appellant Mr. Babaji Ch.
Rout along with a copy of the SB Account shall be handed over to the
learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, who shall instruct the Drawing
& Disbursing Authority of the appellant. Registry shall provide a copy
of this order along with the documents to the DSGI to take steps
accordingly so that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh)
shall be debited at source of payment of pension and shall be credited to
the Bank Account of the Respondent, i.e. Bandana Rout, SB Account No.
30526117588, State Bank of India, PBB Branch, near Bandu Tikra
Chhak, NH-6, Bargarh, IFSC Code - SBIN0010903. (The details of the
Account have been obtained from the State Bank of India, Orissa High
Court Branch, Cuttack by the Court Master, upon our instruction).
4. The Bank Account of the appellant Babaji Charan Rout shall remain
freezed in view of the fact that the appellant is non-committal regarding
giving his details how he will comply a decree that is lying to be
executed for the last more than 10 years. The Drawing & Disbursing
Officer of the appellant shall deduct the pension amount credited to the
account of the appellant till the decree is satisfied, i.e. Rs.3,00,000/-.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Das fairly submits that the
appellant has never visited him for the last about 10 years. He seeks
further time for compliance of the decree dated 31.01.2015, for which the
Execution Case was filed in the year 2016.
In our considered view, it would be grossly inappropriate and illegal
to grant further time to a judgment-debtor who, for no reason, has kept
the decree pending to be satisfied for more than ten years.
6. When the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he should
be given a reasonable time to satisfy the decree, he was pointedly asked
whether ten years was not enough, he submits that after separation of the
appellant from his wife, the appellant has chosen not to look after his
daughter. Nothing comes on the said submission, in as much as C.P.
No.424 of 2009 was filed under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption &
Maintenance Act praying for marriage expenses of Rs.6 to 7 lakhs and
maintenance. In our considered view, claim of maintenance by a
daughter under Section 20(3) of the said Act does not depend upon the
marital status of either the father or the mother. The said contention
raised before us is only to be rejected.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, by
efflux of time, many things have happened in the meantime; but we are
sure and confident that the decree remains as it is and as per the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra
Kumar Gandhi, 2021 INSC 270 : (2021) 6 SCC 418 : AIR 2021 SC
2161, the execution case should have been disposed of within one year.
8. The original Pass-Book and other documents produced before this
Court by the appellant are returned and have been received by the learned
counsel for the appellant.
9. List this case on 17th October, 2025 marked at 2.00 p.m., indicating
the name of the DSGI in the cause-list so that we can have his audience
before further action could be taken in the matter. On the said date the
appellant shall remain present in person in this Court and produce
original of entire book of which he has produced page-13 (by
photocopy). In case of failure on his part to appear in person before us on
the said date, as we have directed earlier, the concerned Police authorities
shall ensure his physical presence before this Court.
10. The personal appearance of the appellant is dispensed with for the
day.
The Registry shall intimate this order to the I.I.C., Rajkanika P.S.
for further steps to be taken to ensure presence of the appellant in person
before this Court on the next date.
The Registry shall also intimate the learned Judge, Family Court,
Kendrapara to respond to paragraph-2 above, as observed by us.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
S.K. Parida
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 14-Oct-2025 20:23:15
