Orissa High Court
Jayaprada Tripathy vs Jagnyadatta Tripathy ..... Opp. ... on 10 April, 2024
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
I.A. no.288 of 2023
(Arising out of MATA No.137 of 2022)
Jayaprada Tripathy ..... Applicant/
Applicant/Appellant
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. J.K.Khandayatray,
J.K.Khandayatray
Advocate
-versus-
Jagnyadatta Tripathy ..... Opp. Party/Respondent
Party/
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. B.K. Pardhi,
Pardhi Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
10.04.2024 Order No.
11. 1. Mr. Khandayatray, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant/appellant wife. He submits, his client seeks recall of applicant/appellant-wife.
judgment dated 6th July, 2023. It was made on consent but pursuant to it, respondent-husband respondent husband resiled from his position taken before this thi Court.
Page 1 of 4
2. Mr. Pardhi, learned advocate appears and submits, pursuant to the matrimonial appeal (MATA no.137 of 2022) having been disposed of by said judgment dated 6th July, 2023, his power stood extinguished. He prays to be excused. Learned advocates engaged e by respondent-husband husband in the appeal may withdraw.
3. For purpose of adjudicating the review application it is necessary to relate what has gone before. By order dated 22nd March, 2022 initially and later made, the Family Court closed the case in respect espect of the civil proceeding instituted by respondent-husband respondent for restitution under section 9 in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It will be sufficient for us to reproduce below that part of the order made later on that day.
"The The respondent refused to return back to the house of the petitioner and to stay with him. The reason as stated by the respondent is that she has got a job. And when she disclosed about her job to the petitioner, the petitioner did not agree and asked her whether her job is important or her marriage is important. The petitioner has chosen to continue with her job, which is her right. No one can be forced to quit the job. She has all the rights to be independent and to do any job she is willing to. There should should be mutual understanding between husband and wife. Both should give respect to Page 2 of 4 each other and both should accept each other without any terms and conditions. Hence, the respondent has rightly taken the decision to continue her job and be independent. Accordingly Ac ."
the case is closed."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Review applicant-wife applicant wife preferred appeal from said order dated 22nd March, 2022. Respondent-husband husband did not. The appeal was disposed of by judgment dated 6th July, 2023, review of which is sought. It was made on consent of the parties and amounts to confirmation of impugned order in the appeal.
5. We appreciate applicant-wife applicant wife seeks review of the judgment on apprehension that it may be said she had resisted restitution, to give sufficient ground to respondent-husband, for divorce. On behalf of applicant, it was brought to our notice that in her transfer petition [TRP(C) 2021 disposed of way back on 1st October, 2021, TRP(C) no.311 of 2021] there here was observation made regarding consequences for husband in event he was found to have petitioned petition for restitution on falsehood. Said order dated 22nd March, 2022, impugned in the appeal and resulting in the judgment under review, clearly says that applicant had rightly taken decision and accordingly the case was closed. It is significant that the restitution petition was not dismissed. Page 3 of 4
6. Record of our understanding of the situation as above should allay any apprehension review applicant may still have.
have
7. The application is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge (M.S. Sahoo) Judge Sks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 10-Apr-2024 18:15:08 Page 4 of 4