[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Roshan Patnaik vs Shalini Mohanty .... Opposite Party on 5 February, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 20257 of 2025
Roshan Patnaik .... Petitioner
Mr. Roshan Patnaik in person, Advocate
-versus-
Shalini Mohanty .... Opposite Party
Mr. Om Swarup, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
05.02.2026
Order (Hybrid Mode)
No.
6. 1. The petitioner refers to order dated 29.01.2026
paragraph-2 and submits that he is filing documents
before this Court supported by memo of date. Copy of the
memo has been served on the learned counsel for the
petitioner along with the annexures. Memo along with
the annexures shall be kept on record. Scanned copy be
updated.
2. Since the petitioner is appearing in person, by the
previous order, the matter was directed to be taken up
marked at 2.00 p.m. Accordingly, the matter was taken
up and heard at length.
3. The petition has been filed with the following
prayer :
"it is most humbly prayed that,
this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
1. Set aside the order Dtd. 09.05.2025 on the
interim applications of the Ld. Family Court II,
Bhubaneswar keeping in mind the best interest of
the child
2. Pass any order as the court may deem fit in
the interest of justice."
4. Petitioner has been explained that arguing the matter
regarding custody, visitation and contact rights of parent
would require certain knowledge of law as well as
knowledge of procedure adopted by Courts and also
practices as per the CPC and other procedural laws.
He submits that consciously he has chosen to
argue his matter in person.
5. The order impugned before this Court in the writ
petition was rendered by the learned Judge, Family
Court in six number of 'applications' filed by the
petitioner herein seeking six different reliefs. Learned
Judge, Family Court in order dated 9.5.2025 dealt with
the six separate applications.
The said applications are not in the usual structure
as filed before Court and are not numbered. Copy of the
applications at page 105 of the brief was taken up as the
petitioner has addressed this Court on the said issue.
6. After hearing the petitioner he was asked whether
he can refer to any provision of law under which the
'petitions' were filed before the learned Family Judge and
the reliefs in each of the cases was sought for. Obviously
not being a student of law or equipped with legal
knowledge, petitioner does not have any answer. But
that has not impacted deliberations in the Court today
regarding the further education/study of the child which
is essentially the issue raised before this Court in the
present proceeding.
7. The petitioner and the opposite party have been
blessed with son Ayusman 'Pushan', as stated in the
petition which is at page 105 of the brief, is studying in
pre-school i.e. Eurokid, Surya Nagar, Bhubaneswar.
8. Apparently the six applications filed before the
learned Judge, Family Court have not been numbered.
The learned counsel Mr. Swarup for the opposite party
has an answer to that. He submits that since the
petitions have not been filed under any particular
provision and do not have any cause title to the petition,
the applications could not have been numbered
separately for dealing with each of the applications. In
considered opinion of this Court to deal with those
applications, the provision of law should have been
indicated so that it would have been possible for the
Court to deal with the same in the perspective of
particular statute. However, considering the fact that the
matter involves education of a minor child, the petitioner
was heard at length regarding his perspective and so also
the learned counsel for the opposite party was heard.
9. In the brighter side, the petitioner and the opposite
party converge on the point that both of them want
welfare of the child and the child to continue his studies
in a very good school with best of the amenities and
facilities.
It is submitted by the petitioner that due to dearth
of seats in higher classes, as the number of available
seats in school is less compared to the number of
students, usually the child gets admission at the stage of
pre-school in a school where education is available upto
standard 12.
It is further stated and submitted by the petitioner
that at Eurokid School, Surya Nagar, Bhubaneswar there
is no avenue for further studies beyond pre-school.
Therefore, admission of the child should be explored in
school(s) where education is available upto class 10 or
12.
It is submitted opposite party-mother should also
take steps for getting the child admitted in a school
where class 10 or 12 are available.
10. In response, learned counsel for the opposite party
submits that the mother-opposite party fully agrees with
the concerns regarding study of the child. Learned
counsel upon instruction and as has been stated in the
pleadings before learned Judge, Family Court, refers to
the issue regarding the child having Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). It is submitted
that it would be the best interest of the child that he goes
to a school where a child having ADHD gets the best
opportunity and gets adequate attention.
11. From the above interaction and hearing in the
Court, this Court comes to a conclusion that both the
parents are concerned regarding the education of the
child. Both of them have lot of love and affection as it
would be by natural for them towards their child.
12. The concern of the father regarding school
admission process having already started and progressed
substantially, is common knowledge.
Therefore, both the petitioner and opposite party
are requested to have convergence as far as studies of
the child is concerned. Both are directed and are also
expected to cooperate with the other in finding out a
school where the needs of the child and his interest are
adequately taken care of.
13. This Court also observes that the petitioner as well
as opposite party will rise above their individual
differences and perceptions about each other for the
welfare of the child to give him best of life according to
the ability of the parents.
The parties are directed to go to schools together
while enquiring about admission. Mr. Swarup, learned
counsel submits that there was some difficulty in getting
Adhar Card of the child. The parent shall initiate the
process together for obtaining the Adhar Card and/or
other identity proofs of the child.
14. List on 26.02.2026 marked at 2.00 P.M. as the
petitioner is appearing in person.
15. This Court hopes and also trusts that by the next
date, the school for the child will be identified and
admission process would be initiated and possibly
completed.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
dutta
