Roshan Patnaik vs Shalini Mohanty .... Opposite Party on 26 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
                                         -versus-

            Shalini Mohanty                        ....    Opposite Party

                                               Mr. Om Swarup, Advocate
                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
                                       ORDER

26.02.2026 (Hybrid Mode) Order No.

07. 1. Petitioner appears in person and addresses the Court and is heard at length. Learned counsel Mr. Swarup is present for Opposite Party and is heard.

2. The matter is taken up being marked at 2.00 p.m. Paragraph-12 of the earlier order dated 05.02.2026 passed by this Court is quoted herein :

"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."

3. In response to the Court's query regarding compliance of paragraph-12 of the order dated 05.02.2026, whether the direction contained in said paragraph has been complied with by the parents, i.e

the petitioner father and the opp. party mother, it is submitted by the petitioner that the wife in the marriage the mother of the child does not stay in Bhubaneswar, she works in Gurugram in the State of Haryana. It is submitted that he could not meet the mother of the child to comply with the paragraph-12 of the order.

4. Mr. Swarup, learned counsel in response, submits that the mother of the child is very much present in Bhubaneswar at her place of residence. Regarding compliance of paragraph-12, it is stated that paragraph-12 has not been complied with by the petitioner who appears in person. In response, it is submitted by the petitioner appearing in person that he has sent e-mail to the mother of the child and e-mails have been received by the opp. party mother.

5. Accordingly the petitioner was asked by which portion of the order dated 05.02.2025 he was directed to send e-mail to the mother of the child, in response, he is unable to point out any part of the order where he was asked to send e-mail to the mother of the child.

The petitioner then asks the Court how else he will communicate with the mother of the child.

In all fairness, the question asked by the petitioner is not pertinent to be answered in any manner by the Court much less to be given any importance for adjudication of the matter. Apparently, the petitioner has failed to comply with the paragraph-12 of the order directing both the parties and also expecting both the parties to cooperate with the order in finding a school where needs of child and interest are adequately taken care of.

6. Learned counsel Mr Swarup refers to the paragraph- 13 of the order dated 05.02.2026 regarding difficulty faced in taking the child for admission to any school and provision of Adhar Card for the child. Paragraph-13 of the order is reproduced herein :

"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."

7. It is submitted by the petitioner appearing in person that he has handed over photocopy of the Adhar Card to the child on a date which he is not able to recollect.

In response thereto a query is made from the Court by which order or which portion of the order dated 05.02.2026, petitioner was directed or asked to hand over photocopy of the Adhar Card to the child aged about 6 years, again petitioner has no answer apart from repeatedly saying that he has complied with the order.

8. Though with utmost care and concern the matter has been dealt with as would be evident from the order dated 5.2.2026, the petitioner has not been able to act diligently to comply with the order passed by this Court which is not adversarial rather conciliatory in nature as

would be apparent from the language used and the direction issued.

For the reasons best known to him the petitioner has not been able to meet the mother of the child to search for a school together.

9. Without supported by any affidavit or any other document, it is submitted by the petitioner that he has visited six schools and one Venkateswar English Medium School, Unit IV, Bhubaneswar has agreed for granting admission to the child. He askes this Court to pass orders for the child to be admitted to the Venkateswar English Medium School.

At this stage, in view of the submission of the petitioner no further order can be passed directing admission of the child aged about six years in a particular school. In the best interest of the child the parents were directed by order dated 05.02.2026 (at paragraph-13, quoted above) to go together to various schools which has not yielded any result.

10. The petitioner raises his hand and says that he has prepared additional affidavit to be filed in the Court. Whether he has prepared the affidavit or not, fact remains he has not filed any affidavit in compliance with the order dated 05.02.2026 nor he has responded to any query positively regarding the compliance to be made by him for admission of child apart from sending e-mails to the mother of the child and handing over photocopy of Adhar Card to the child.

11. The petitioner is not sure what happened to the copy of the Adhar Card. On being asked what happened to the original of the Adhar Card, he says in Oriya ""ମ ୁଁ ତା ଜେର୍ᙍ କପି ଟା ଜେଇଥ ିଲି " which means he handed over xerox copy of Adhar Card to the child. The order dated 5.2.2026 which has been followed by the acts of the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court by petitioner himself would indicate that either he has purposefully or otherwise has not been able to comply with the order dated 5.2.2026 by not meeting his wife and not going to any school along with the mother of the child.

12. Now on being asked whether he wants the matter to be adjourned or dismissed, the petitioner submits that the matter to be adjourned.

Again after completion of the dictation of the order the petitioner seeks leave to address, which is allowed considering the fact that he appears in person. He again reiterates that he has been sending e-mail to the mother giving details of the schools he has visited, which is not directed/contemplated in the order dated 05.02.2026.

13. The petitioner on being asked that he has not complied with paragraphs 12 & 13 of the order for selecting a school he asks the Court "ଆଡ୍ିଶ ି ନ ଜକାଉଠି ଜେବ ତା

ଜେଜଲ ?" which translated into English would make a sentence, 'where the admission will happen ?'

In considered opinion of this Court asking the question to this Court leads to nowhere and nothing turns on the said question either to be answered or not answered. The parties though directed earlier have not gone to any school together seeking admission of their child.

14. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner has been requesting her wife to come and join him to go to schools but she does not respond. In considered opinion of this Court nothing turns on the said submission as far as admission of the child is concerned and paragraphs 12 & 13 of the order dated 05.02.2026 are very clear.

Next the petitioner asks the Court if they (the opp. party) have any school in mind, then he will be very happy. In considered opinion of this Court, asking the question to this Court whether the other side has any school, in her mind for child's admission which means whether the other side has identified any school, is of no avail for adjudication of the matter.

15. The petitioner submits that he requests the Court to suggest him how he will communicate with his wife. In considered opinion of this Court, no Court much less this Court can make such an endeavour regarding suggesting the husband in the marriage the methods of communication he will make with his wife. If the petitioner is intending to

read between the lines of the order dated 05.02.2026 as directed at paragraphs 10 to 12 and 15, it has to be and it is made clear that the petitioner should not add anything or subtract anything to the order to interpret in his own way rather order is to be read plain and simple and has to be given plain grammatical meaning.

16. Despite being requested to conclude his submissions/arguments, the petitioner goes on saying that he has been very transparent and he has requested multiple times his wife by sending e- mails.

17. In response to all submissions made today, relevant and as well as irrelevant by the petitioner for adjudication of the matter, it is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party wife in the marriage mother of the child that the opposite party has been allowing the father to take the child but she is not aware of the details of the school(s) which he has visited neither she was informed regarding the details of the school to which the child w as taken. On the last date of hearing i.e. 2.5.2026 after the Court hours, the petitioner went to the KIIT International School, interacted with the staff and it is alleged that he cautioned the staff not to give admission to the child. The staff of the said school had informed the mother of the child over phone. It is submitted that

KIIT international school is most suited for the child with ADHD syndrome.

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that he will file affidavit in response to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners today and copy served on him.

18. Petitioner submits that he has prepared affidavit. As stated by him he shall file the said affidavit before the Registry which shall be sent for stamp reporting if that is in order or not.

Copy of the affidavit has already been served on the learned counsel for the opposite party. He will have liberty to obtain instruction and file response of the O.P.

19. The matter shall be listed on 12.03.2026.

Since the petitioner is appearing in person, it will be listed marked at 2.00 P.M. It is still felt apt to reiterate that order dated 05.02.2026 should be complied with by the parties, the mother and father of the child regarding admission of the child to a school now aged about six years.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge dutta