The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 (In the matter of an application Under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) Prajna Paramita Praharaj …. Petitioner Devi Prasad Samantaray …. -versus- Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. S. Das, Advocate : Mrs. K. Patra, Advocate For Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.01.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. Grieved by the impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by learned Judge, Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar in CP No. 31 of 2016 refusing to reject the
Decision
petition dated 04.10.2024 filed by the writ Petitioner-wife in an application U/O. VII, Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short the “CPC”), the Petitioner-wife has challenged such order before this Court in the writ petition by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 Page 1 of 8 Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The facts in precise are that the Petitioner and OP fell in love with each other during the years of their studies and in order to give recognition of their courtship, on 07.04.2006, they got their relationship recognized by registering their marriage before the Marriage Officer at Puri under the provision of Sec. 13 of Special Marriage Act, 1954. However, an untoward incident occurred in the parental house of the Petitioner on 21.07.2008 leading to death of a person, for which, the Petitioner and her parents were arrested for the charge of murder, but subsequently they got released on bail. While the matter stood thus, in the month of June, 2009, the Petitioner and the OP got themselves again married according to Hindu Custom and Rituals with consent and knowledge of family members of the respective parties. After staying for some days at in-laws’ house, dissension arose between the Petitioner and the OP and it was alleged by the Petitioner that the OP had driven her out of matrimonial house. While the matter stood thus, on 30.3.2015, the Petitioner was convicted by the learned W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 Page 2 of 8 Sessions Judge, Jajpur in CT Case No. 76 of 2010 for the charge of murder and she was sentenced to life imprisonment along with other sentence, but the Petitioner became successful in the appeal in CRLA No. 202 of 2015, wherein the High Court by a judgment dated 08.11.2016 acquitted the Petitioner for the charge of murder, however, claiming infidelity of the Petitioner and accusing her to have committed murder of her paramour with the allegation of adultery, the OP-husband has filed a petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for dissolution of their marriage which has been registered as Civil Proceeding No. 31 of 2016, wherein the Petitioner has filed an application U/O. VII R- 11 of the CPC for rejection of petition on the ground that the petition for dissolution of marriage does not disclose any cause of action, but such petition was ultimately rejected, however, being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred a writ petition in WP(C) No. 21596 of 2024 before this Court. In disposal of the said writ petition, this Court while not expressing any opinion on merits granted leave to the Petitioner to file a better application U/O VII, R-11 of the CPC stating specific grounds therein and W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 Page 3 of 8 directed the concerned Court to consider the same after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Accordingly, the present Petitioner filed another application U/O. VII R-11 of the CPC to reject the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP which came to be rejected by the impugned order giving rise to the present writ petition challenging such order. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Sashibhusan Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the facts submits that the learned trial Court without adverting to the matters on merit has simply relied upon two decisions which are not applicable to this case and passed the impugned order refusing to reject the petition of OP for dissolution of marriage, but fact remains that the petition of the OP does not disclose any cause of action and thereby, such petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP-husband is liable to be rejected. On the aforesaid submission, Mr. Das prays to allow the writ petition to drop the Civil Proceeding No. 31 of 2016. 3.1. On the contrary, Mrs. Kabita Patra, learned counsel for the OP while refuting the submission as W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 Page 4 of 8 advanced for the Petitioner emphatically submits that not only the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the husband-OP discloses cause of action, but also the present Petitioner-wife is protracting the litigation by filing one after another application for the selfsame relief which was earlier rightly turned down by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted by Mrs. Patra that the decisions relied on by the learned trial Court is perfectly on the point of law and applicable to this case and, therefore, the impugned order having been passed on sound discretion of law needs no interference. On the aforesaid submission, Mrs. Patra prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of the record, there appears no dispute about the learned trial Court refusing to reject the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP- husband by the impugned order which is under challenged in this writ petition, but the submission as advanced for the Petitioner-wife only relates to the challenge of the impugned order on the ground that the petition for dissolution of marriage having not disclosed W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 Page 5 of 8 any cause of action is liable to be rejected. In essence, the Petitioner-wife seeks for rejection of the petition for dissolution of marriage on the very ground that it does not disclose any cause of action in terms of U/O. VII R- 11(a) of the CPC. It is no more res integra that while deciding a petition for rejection of plaint/petition in the nature of plaint, the Court has to only refer to the averments/pleadings of the plaint/petition in the nature of plaint, but it is not required by the Court to peruse/go through the defence of the other side for the aforesaid purpose. Looking at the averments of the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP-husband carefully, it appears that OP-husband has filed the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery of the Petitioner-wife and the cruelty inflicted by her which are two valid grounds as contemplated U/S. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, but the grant or refusal of decree of divorce by the Court concerned is subject to proof of such adultery or cruelty. However, the Court at this stage of deciding the rejection of plaint/petition in the nature of the plaint U/O. VII R-11 of the CPC is not required to analyze the evidence and document produced W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 Page 6 of 8 by the parties and the Court is only required to go through the averments made in the plaint/petition to find out as to whether the cause of action for the relief claimed has been averred/pleaded in the plaint. Once the Court is satisfied that there are pleadings/averments sufficient to indicate the cause of action for bringing the suit/proceeding, such plaint/ petition in the nature of the plaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold. 5. In this case, especially when there is sufficient pleadings for claim of the relief for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery and cruelty, which are recognized by Hindu Marriage Act to be valid grounds for grant of divorce, it cannot be said that the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by OP-husband does not disclose any cause of action so as to reject such petition at the threshold. It is of course argued by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the decision in Srihari Hanumandas Totala Vrs. Hemant Vithal Kamat; (2021) 9 SCC 99 is not applicable to the case at hand, but the fact remains that the principles as culled out therein are quite applicable to the present case inasmuch as prima facie cause of action is disclosed on a bare W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 Page 7 of 8 perusal of the averments made in the petition for dissolution of marriage as filed by the OP-husband. In this background, this Court considers that the learned trial Court has rightly adjudicated the issue and refused to reject the petition of the OP-husband seeking the remedy of divorce for dissolution of marriage, but the OP- husband has to establish such grounds for getting the relief, nonetheless the petition of the OP-husband seeking remedy of divorce from Petitioner-wife having prima facie disclosed the cause of action as required U/O. VII R-11(a) of the CPC, the impugned order cannot be interfered with nor is it liable to be modified. 6. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order as to costs. (G. Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 31-Jan-2025 16:15:40 Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 29th January, 2025/Priyajit W.P.(C) No.184 of 2025 Page 8 of 8