Orissa High Court
Gitanjali Barik vs Bhruguram Barik on 16 October, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.132 of 2015
Gitanjali Barik .... Appellant
Represented by Adv.-
Ms. P. Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus -
Bhruguram Barik .... Respondent
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Choudhury P.K. Mishra, Advocate
and Mr. S.C. Satapathy, Advocate
Ms. Krishna Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 16.10.2025
(Hybrid mode)
15. 1. Pursuant to our direction dated 16.10.2025 the Inspector-
in-Charge, Gondia Police Station in the district of Dhenkanal, Shri
Santanu Kumar Pradhan is present in person and he has ensured
appearance of Shri Bhruguram Barik-respondent, who had been
evading all communications from the Court through his learned
counsel and also notice issued through police, since, listing of the
matter before the Coordinate Benches and this Bench starting with
17.06.2025 before the Coordinate Bench wherein one of us (Mr.
M.S. Sahoo, J.) was a Member and thereafter on 19.06.2025,
11.07.2025, 30.07.2025, 11.08.2025, 10.09.2025 and lastly on
15.10.2025.
2. On being asked Mr. Choudhury P.K. Mishra, learned
counsel submits that he continues to appear the matter with
Mr. S.C. Satapathy, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent for
the fact that he is on record by filing Vakalatnama and no consent
has been obtained from him for engaging any other counsel.
Mrs. Krishna Mohapatra, learned counsel is present and
submits that the respondent has not obtained any consent to engage
Mr. Chitta Ranjan Pattnaik, learned counsel and associates and
they have filed Vakalatnama without obtaining consent from the
earlier learned counsels.
3. The respondent has approached the learned counsel Mr.
Choudhury P.K. Mishra, in Court today to seek consent from him
to engage any other counsel.
Learned counsel, Mr. Mishra being gracious enough has
given consent in a memo in as much as the Vakalatnama executed
by the respondent in favour of Mr. C.R. Pattnaik, learned counsel
has already been filed before the Court and become part of the
record.
4. It is stated by the learned counsel, Mr. Pattnaik as per
instruction of the respondent that pursuant to the judgment and
decree dated 08.07.2015, the amount was deposited on 11.04.2018
as directed by the coordinate Bench by order dated 16.03.2018. For
the period of delay in complying with the decree without any stay
order from the appellate Court, we direct that the respondent shall
pay Rs.5,000/- consolidated to the appellant.
5. Regarding the amount of permanent alimony, it is
reiterated by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that despite
the appeal being filed within time and the bar contained in Section
15 of Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent has married again which
brings into question the legality and validity of "the said
marriage". We have already noted the said aspect in our order
dated 10.09.2025 at paragraph-2.
It is submitted that at this stage it would be almost
impossible for the parties to resume their matrimonial relationship
though the appellant has challenged the decree of divorce.
6. Regarding the reasonable amount of alimony, learned
counsel for the respondent has adjournment to obtain instruction.
7. List for further orders on 25th November, 2025. By the next
date, Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited by the respondent/ credited to
the account of appellant.
Personal appearance of the Inspector-in-Charge, Gondia
Police Station is dispensed with.
The personal appearance of the respondent is dispensed
with for the day. He shall be required to remain present as would
be directed in future.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge.
Narayan/Ranjeeta
