Satyajit Singh vs Laxmipriya Das @ Singh on 20 April, 2026

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   MATA No.16 of 2022
            Satyajit Singh                         ....             Appellant
                                                      Represented By Adv. -
                                                 Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate
                                          -versus-

            Laxmipriya Das @ Singh                   ....            Respondent
                                                      Represented By Adv. -
                                                     Mr. Bijay Jena, Advocate
                             CORAM:
                             JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
                             JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

                                            ORDER

20.04.2026 (Hybrid Mode) I.A. No.630 of 2025 Order No.

10.

1. The I.A. has been filed for recall of final order and decree dated 29.08.2024 in the disposed of MATA.

Since the MATA was disposed of by a Bench, where one of us (M.S. Sahoo,J.) was a member, the other Hon'ble Judge not being available, as per the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice in the administrative side dated 12.02.2026 the matter has been listed before this Bench.

2. In the I.A. the following prayer has been made:

"In the circumstances, the Petitioner/Respondent prays that your Lordship may graciously be pleased to allow the interim application and the order dated 29.08.2024 and subsequent order dated 05.09.2024 may kindly be recall in the interest of justice or else the Petitioner/Respondent shall highly prejudice;

And for this act of kindness the Petitioner/Respondent is duty bound shall ever pray."

3. The prayer is inter alia to recall the order dated 29.08.2024. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel, who was appearing for the appellant in the disposed of MATA is present. Learned counsel Mr. B. Jena for the petitioner in I.A. was heard at some length.

4. The orders of the Division Bench dealing with MATA dated 09.02.2024, 01.03.2024, 02.04.2024, 08.08.2024 till it was disposed of by order dated 29.08.2024 granting decree of divorce were brought to the notice of the learned counsel Mr. Jena. The said orders passed by this Court are reproduced herein.

"Order dated 09.02.2024

1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and submits, there was direction for issuance of notice, lastly by order dated 7th April, 2022. The postal article has been returned unserved with endorsement 'There is no such addressee'.

2. He submits, before the family Court respondent-wife gave the address, to which the postal article was sent. In the circumstances, there be record of good service.

3. We have compared address of respondent-wife appearing in impugned common judgment, where she stands described as petitioner in C.P. Case no.57 of 2018 and respondent in C.P. Case no.45 of 2019. Appellant-husband is aggrieved by impugned judgment, whereby his C.P. Case no.45 of 2019 for dissolution of the marriage was dismissed. The description of respondent-wife in her C.P. case, given in impugned judgment includes landmark near 'Chaka Mandap' but where she is described as respondent in the cause title under C.P. Case no.45 of 2019, the description of landmark is not there. The address in the postal article matches with her address given in impugned judgment on C.P. Case no.45 of 2019. Landmark (near 'Chaka Mandap') was not mentioned in the address given in the postal article. However, from the endorsement it is clear that the postman found the address

but not the addressee, to endorse that there is no such addressee. In the circumstances, there is indication that respondent-wife may have given wrong address in her petition or instituting the civil proceeding, against which the appeal arises. As such, we consider there has been good service.

4. The lower Court record be called for. Appellant will communicate this order by registered/speed post with AD to address of respondent-wife given as petitioner in impugned common judgment and file the AD card or returned unserved postal article on adjourned date.

5. List on 1st March, 2024.

Order dated 01.03.2024

1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and submits, there is noting of the postal article having been returned unserved.

2. We by our order dated 9th February, 2024 had recorded good service and thereafter directed further communication be made. We reproduce below paragraph 4 from said order.

"4. The lower Court record be called for. Appellant will communicate this order by registered/speed post with AD to address of respondent-wife given as petitioner in impugned common judgment and file the AD card or returned unserved postal article on adjourned date."

As we thought, the postal article has been returned. Endorsement made by the postal authority is 'Not known'.

3. The lower Court record is available. The appeal will be heard on adjourned date or thereafter. Mr. Mohanty is requested to communicate this order to learned advocate who had appeared on behalf of respondent-wife in the family Court. The communication be made by registered/speed post with A.D.

4. List on 20th March, 2024."

Order dated 02.04.2024

1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and submits, by impugned judgment dated 18th November, 2021 the Family Court dismissed both

petitions, filed respectively by his client and respondent-wife for dissolution of the marriage and restitution. With reference to our order dated 1st March, 2024, he hands up memo of date. Attached to it is postal article returned unserved with endorsement 'deceased'. It was addressed to the learned advocate, who had represented respondent-wife in the Family Court.

2. On query from Court Mr. Mohanty submits, respondent- wife has not appealed against dismissal of her petition for restitution.

3. The lower Court record is available. In the circumstances, the appeal will be heard ex parte against respondent-wife as good service was recorded on 9th February, 2024 and further direction also carried out by appellant.

4. List on 23rd April, 2024.

Order dated 08.08.2024

1. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband. He submits, evidence adduced by respondent will reveal she and her mother deposed that they have allegations against parents of his client. Respondent's endeavour to separate his client from his parents amounts to cruelty. Furthermore, by impugned judgment apart from dismissing his client's case for dissolution of the marriage, the petition for restitution filed by respondent was also dismissed. Respondent did not prefer appeal.

2. Respondent goes unrepresented. Reference be made to paragraph-3 in our order 2ndApril, 2024.

3. Mr. Mohanty prays for adjournment to rely on the authorities.

4. List on 29th August, 2024."

5. The learned counsel for the I.A. who was respondent in the disposed of MATA is apprised of the legal position as observed by the Court in the MATA, that the appeal arose out of common judgment dated 18.11.2021 in C.P. No. 57 of 2018 and C.P. No. 45 of 2019. The C.P. No.57 of 2018 was filed by the present applicant

in the I.A. No.630 of 2025, wife in the marriage, under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The C.P. No.45 of 2019 was filed by the husband in the marriage under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce.

By the common judgment both the C.Ps. were dismissed by the learned Judge Family Court.

6. The husband challenged the judgment dismissing C.P. rejecting prayer for grant of decree of divorce.

The wife chose not to challenge the said judgment.

The wife not challenging the judgment has been noted by the Court while allowing the appeal filed by the husband. Grant of decree of divorce in the appeal preferred by the husband, would have legal consequences. The judgment in C.P. No.57 of 2018 in which relief of restitution of conjugal rights stood declined got approved by this Court inasmuch as this Court in appeal has granted decree of divorce.

7. The division bench had gone at length to issue notices again and again by various means and notice was treated to be sufficient in the appeal, the wife being the respondent, by following the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Hazi v. Palapetty Muhammed : (2007) 6 SCC 555.

8. The learned counsel for the applicant is also made aware of the fact that notices were sent in the address given by the wife in her petition (C.P. No.57 of 2018) which was supported by her affidavit and also she gave that address in her address statement in her petition.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant in the I.A. has adjournment to address on the above legal issues.

Learned counsel is also apprised by the learned counsel for the appellant-husband that after grant of decree of divorce on 29.08.2024, the appellant has married again.

10. The matter shall be listed next when this Bench would be available.

The petitioner in the I.A. shall have the liberty to move the Registry for listing of the matter.

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

Sipra/Radha