Interim orders may merge with final orders unless expressly modified; recorded courtroom observations are sacrosanct and can be challenged for expungement in the appropriate court.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 20^th December, 2021 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Civil Proceeding No.42 of 2007, whereby a direction has been made to the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.18,90,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 within a period of three months failing which, liberty was given to Opposite Party No.1 to realize the same by due process of law.

3. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10^th June, 1995. Out of their wedlock, a son was born on 11^th May, 1996 and a daughter was born on 30^th October, 2001. Due to dissention arose between the parties, Opposite Party No.1 left the matrimonial home. Subsequently, Opposite Party No.1-Wife along with children filed an application under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for brevity ‘the HAM Act’) in C.P. No.154 of 2005 in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela. The Petitioner also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity ‘the HM Act’) for restitution of conjugal right in C.P. No.214 of 2005. Both C.P. No.154 of 2005 and 214 of 2005 were heard analogously. While dismissing the application under the HM Act, learned Judge allowed the petition under and 20 of the HAM Act vide order dated 16^th September, 2006 directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Wife, Rs.800/- per month to the son and Rs.300/- per month to the daughter. The said order was not challenged and attained its finality. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed C.P. No.42 of 2007 for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce, which was dismissed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela vide judgment dated 26^th August, 2011 under Annexure-1. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed MATA No.75 of 2011 before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, this Court vide order dated 8^th October, 2015 passed the following order:

“……….As an interim measure, therefore, we direct the appellant-husband to come with a bank draft of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) of a Nationalized Bank standing in the name of his wife on 30^th October, 2015, on which date this Matrimonial Appeal shall come up for further deliberation. Meanwhile, we direct that the appellant-husband should not be allowed by the Authority of the Rourkela Steel Plant to take out any money except a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from his Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. He will get only half salary per month. Henceforth, half of the salary of the appellant- husband be deposited by the Rourkela Steel Plant in a bank account to be opened by it which amount shall be utilized subject to further order passed by this Court.”

4. On 17^th November, 2015, this Court passed the following order:

“List this matrimonial appeal again on 30.11.2015. On the next date, learned Counsel for the appellant shall intimate us as to what amount the appellant would like to part away to be given to his wife. Meanwhile, half of the salary of the appellant, which has now been deposited in a separate account, is directed to be paid to the wife.”

5. Subsequently, MATA No.75 of 2011 was allowed vide judgment dated 15^th April, 2019 under Annexure-2 with the following directions:

“11. In view of the discussion of facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned trial Court to frame a specific issue as to cruelty and give a specific finding thereon after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties, that being more so for the reason that both