The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 04-Apr-2025 16:38:54 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No.3 of 2012, MATA No.18 of 2012, MATA No.66 of 2012 & MATA No.43 of 2017 In MATA No.3 of 2012 Sri Gurunath Sahu …. Appellant Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate -versus- Smt. Sumati Sahu Respondent Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate …. In MATA No.18 of 2012
Legal Reasoning
Sri Gurunath Sahu …. Appellant Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate -versus- Smt. Sumati Sahu and another Respondents Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate …. In MATA No.66 of 2012 Sri Gurunath Sahu …. Appellant Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate -versus- Smt. Sumati Sahu and another Respondents Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate …. In MATA No.43 of 2017 Smt. Sumati Sahu and another …. Appellants Mr. D. Mohapatra, Senior Advocate -versus- Sri Gurunath Sahu …. Respondent Mr. L.K. Maharana, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 02.04.2025 31. 1. Heard Mr. L.K. Maharana, learned counsel for the Husband and Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the Wife. Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 04-Apr-2025 16:38:54 2. Both the husband and wife are present in person. The husband is aged about 63 years and the wife is aged 53 years. 3. Above four appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order passed in Civil Proceeding (C.P.) No.18 of 2010, C.P. No.74 of 2010 and C.P. No.305 of 2011. 4. MATA No.66 of 2012 has been filed challenging order dated 27th April, 2012 of learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur passed in C.P. No.305 of 2011, wherein the husband was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- in favour of wife and Rs.5000/- in favour of the daughter under Section 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. MATA No.3 of 2012, 18 of 2012 and 43 of 2017 have been filed challenging the common judgment dated 3rd December, 2011 of learned Family Judge, Berhampur passed in C.P. No.18 of 2010 and C.P. No.74 of 2010. Civil Proceeding No.18 of 2010 was filed by the wife praying for judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and C.P. No.74 of 2010 was filed by the husband praying for divorce under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the common impugned judgment, the learned Judge, Family Court, while refusing to grant either judicial separation as prayed by the wife or decree of divorce as prayed by the husband, has directed for payment of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the wife and Rs.3000/- in favour of the daughter, which were subsequently enhanced to Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively in order dated 27th April, 2012 passed in C.P. No.305 of 2011. Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 04-Apr-2025 16:38:54 5. Considering the age of the parties we directed personal appearance of the parties with a hope for reunion. Being asked in court, the wife expressed her willingness to stay with the husband. But the husband refused to stay with the wife and daughter. We fail in our attempt for reunion upon further communication with both parties in the open court and seeing the determination on the part of the husband not to stay together. 6. It is true that the wife had earlier filed the proceeding before learned Family Judge for judicial separation and upon refusal of the same present MATA No.43 of 2017 has been filed challenging the judgement. However, it is stated by the wife in open court that she was misguided to file judicial separation though her intention was to stay together with the husband along with their daughter. 7. In course of hearing it is further surfaced that one proceeding under PWDV Act has been filed by the wife wherein a sum of Rs.8000/- has been directed by the learned court in favour of the wife to be paid by the husband and the matter is still sub-judice before learned SDJM, Berhampur being remanded by the Sessions Court, Berhampur. It is further surfaced that two other proceedings in C.P. No.4 of 2021 and C.P. No.6 of 2021 filed by the daughter and wife respectively against the husband for enhancement of the maintenance amount and other reliefs are pending. 8. The husband has served as Deputy General Manager in NALCO and retired in August, 2022. The wife and daughter have Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 04-Apr-2025 16:38:54 no independent source of income. The daughter has attended the marriageable age. 9. Upon deliberating with the parties in person and hearing learned respective counsels and taking note of their age, socio economic status, circumstances and places of residence that the husband is residing at Bhubaneswar and the wife and daughter are at Berhampur, we deem it fit to grant judicial separation between the husband and wife in terms of Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act with direction for payment of permanent alimony of Rs.40,00,000/- (forty lakhs) in favour of the wife to be paid by the husband. The parties, namely Gurunath Sahu and Sumati Sahu are judicially separated from each other with effect from today. It is worth mentioning here that, the prayer of the husband for decree of divorce at this age of the parties is found for mere satisfaction of his ego as the same would bring no fruitful purpose except casting social stigma on the part of the wife. 10. The husband is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (thirty lakhs) in favour of the daughter namely, Sudha Suman Sahu towards her marriage and other expenses. The amounts directed above to be deposited before learned Judge, Family Court within a period of two months from today by the husband. Failing to deposit the same by the husband, the wife and daughter are at liberty to execute the same in accordance with law. 11. In the result all the appeals are disposed of in terms of above direction with grant of decree for judicial separation. Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 04-Apr-2025 16:38:54 12. In view of this order the wife and daughter are at liberty to take steps in accordance with law for withdrawal of C.P. No.4 of 2021 and C.P. No.6 of 2021. The wife further undertakes to take steps for withdrawal of the proceeding under PWDV Act pending before learned SDJM, Berhampur. 13. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to arrear maintenance which is liable to be paid by the husband till today. Judge (B.P. Routray) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) M.K. Panda Page 5 of 5