Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 146 (ORI)

Madhusmita Pujari v. Partha Sarathi Mishra

2016-02-22

BISWAJIT MOHANTY, VINOD PRASAD

body2016
JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. 1. Since both the above noted appeals were taken up analogously, this common order is being passed to dispose of both the appeals. The factual matrix of both the appeals are as follows: 2. Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra is appellant No. 1 in Mata No. 118 of 2014 and the sole appellant in MATA No. 125 of 2014. Partha Sarathi Mishra is the sole respondent in both the above noted appeals. Their daughter-Anmol Mishra is appellant No. 2 in MATA No. 118 of 2014. 3. A perusal of record shows that the marriage between Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Partha Sarathi Mishra was solemnized on 11.07.1993. Out of the wedlock, daughter, Anmol Mishra was born on 3.6.1996. Trouble started brewing between the spouses even before the daughter was born and got aggravated after the birth of the daughter. Dispute arose between the spouses due to alleged extra marital affairs. Thereafter, the allegation is that Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra went back to her father's house in November, 2000 and never returned. In such background, theatre of action got shifted to Court rooms and that Partha Sarathi Mishra filed C.P. No. 781 of 2002 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage and for custody of their minor daughter, Anmol Mishra in the Family Court, Cuttack. Despite summons, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra did not appear and accordingly, on 22.8.2003, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack decreed Civil Proceeding No. 781 of 2002 ex-parte against Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and dissolved their marriage by passing a decree of divorce. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack further directed to give the custody of the then minor daughter, Anmol Mishra to Partha Sarathi Mishra. In 2013, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra filed Civil Proceeding No. 460 of 2013 before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She also filed Interlocutory Application No. 118 of 2013 claiming interim maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter, Anmol Mishra in Family Court, Bhubaneswar. During pendency of Civil Proceeding No. 460 of 2013, Anmol Mishra became a major on 3.6.2014. According to Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, she came to know about order dated 22.8.2013 passed in Civil Proceeding No. 781 of 2002 on 16.8.2014. During pendency of Civil Proceeding No. 460 of 2013, Anmol Mishra became a major on 3.6.2014. According to Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, she came to know about order dated 22.8.2013 passed in Civil Proceeding No. 781 of 2002 on 16.8.2014. However, on 10.9.2014, Civil Proceeding No. 460 of 2013 was disposed of along with I.A. No. 118 of 2013 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar holding that the cases were not at all maintainable in the background of order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Civil Proceeding No. 781 of 2002. Challenging the said order dated 10.09.2014, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Anmol Mishra filed MATA No. 118 of 2014 on 14.10.2014. Thereafter, on 22.10.2014, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra filed MATA No. 125 of 2014 challenging the order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Civil Proceeding No. 781 of 2002. On 20.4.2015, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, Anmol Mishra and Partha Sarathi Mishra appeared in Court along with their respective counsel. When this Court realized that the re-union was not possible, it went into the question with regard to quantum of permanent alimony. In order to give the parties a chance regarding settlement relating to permanent alimony, MATA No. 118 of 2014 was directed to be taken up on 22.4.2015 along with MATA No. 125 of 2014. On 22.4.2015, all the parties along with their respective counsel presented themselves before this Court and the matter was taken up in the Chambers. After a long deliberation, the parties came to an amicable settlement on following terms and conditions relating to all the disputes between them. The terms of settlement were as follows:-- "1. That the two Federal Bank Limited Certificates issued by Cuttack Branch from Account No. 13770300116517 dated 6.8.2011 and Account No. 13770300116012 dated 12.7.2011, both standing in the joint names of Sri Parthasarathi Mishra and Anmol Mishra, wherein it is mentioned that either or survivor can get them encashed, the first certificate having maturity value of Rs. 7,44,274.00 and the subsequent having maturity value of Rs. 7,07,317.00 be handed over to Anmol Mishra who is entitled to get them enchased on maturity. The said certificates have been handed over to Anmol Mishra in presence of the counsel for both sides as well as the father and she is directed to make an endorsement regarding receipt thereof on the order-sheet of this Matrimonial Appeal. 2. 7,07,317.00 be handed over to Anmol Mishra who is entitled to get them enchased on maturity. The said certificates have been handed over to Anmol Mishra in presence of the counsel for both sides as well as the father and she is directed to make an endorsement regarding receipt thereof on the order-sheet of this Matrimonial Appeal. 2. That the bank account in the Federal Bank Limited opened in the name of Anmol Mishra, being bank Account No. 125 (New No. 1257) will continue with Anmol Mishra and the father will hand over the passbook of the said bank account to Anmol Mishra on 12.5.2015, when this matter shall come up again. 3. That the father Parthasarathi Mishra will give a draft of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) in the name of Anmol Mishra on 12th May, 2015. 4. That the father will come with a draft of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) on 3rd of July, 2015 in the name of Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra. 5. That the father Parthasarathi Mishra will come with another bank draft of Rs. 28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight lakhs) in the name of Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra on 5th January, 2016. The above five terms and conditions have been accepted and agreed to by both the sides in presence of their respective counsel on their own volition without any threat, force, coercion or mis-representation. This is in full and final settlement. These terms and conditions, we repeat, are in full and final settlement of all the disputes of any nature between the parties." 4. The matter was further taken up on 12.5.2015, 3.7.2015, 10.12.2015 and finally on 5.1.2016. By 5.1.2016 the terms of settlement as delineated on 22.4.2015 have been implemented. Accordingly, this Court recorded that there remained no other dispute between the parties. In such background, nothing remains to be decided in both the appeals. However, before giving a quietus to the matter, it is directed that since the matters have ended in compromise, all the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties should be ignored and should have no effect in future, so that the future lives of the parties, particularly, that of the daughter, Anmol Mishra would in no way be affected. However, before giving a quietus to the matter, it is directed that since the matters have ended in compromise, all the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties should be ignored and should have no effect in future, so that the future lives of the parties, particularly, that of the daughter, Anmol Mishra would in no way be affected. However, we make it clear that we have not interfered with the order dated 22.8.2003 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack dissolving the marriage between Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Parthasarathi Mishra passed in C.P. No. 781 of 2002. Both the above noted appeals are accordingly disposed of. Vinod Prasad, J. – I agree. Disposed off.