Nabanita Sahoo v. Debadutta Mohanty
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of above, the petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of above, the petition is disposed of. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to be kept in the records of C.P. No.161 of 2025. Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Radha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed…
Judgment
Mr. R.K. Samal, Advocate -versus- Debadutta Mohanty …. Opp. Party Mr. R.K. Mallick, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO ORDER 21.04.2026 (Hybrid Mode) Order No. 04.
The application has been filed by the wife in the marriage seeking transfer of C.P. No.161 of 2025 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada, Dist.-Mayurbhanj. The C.P. has been filed by the husband in the marriage U/s.22 of the Special marriage Act, 1954 seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
Memo of date has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner which bears the endorsement of the learned counsel for the opposite party. Memo states thus:
That, in view of settlement the opposite party agreed to withdraw C.P. No.161 of 2025 pending before Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Hence it may directed to disposed of to allow to withdraw the C.P. No.161 of 2025 pending before Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. As both filed mutual divorce before learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada vide C.P. No.100/26.
(sic) Memo shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be updated.
Operative part
In view of above, the petition is disposed of. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to be kept in the records of C.P. No.161 of 2025. Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Radha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 24-Apr-2026 12:33:42
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.