IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MATA No. 04 of 2024 Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo …. Appellant @ Mohanty Mr. B. Baug, Senior Advocate -versus-

Smt. Anusaya Mohanty …. Opposite Parties Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Senior Advocate Mr. S.S. Bhuyan, Advocate CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment: 02.04.2025 Chittaranjan Dash, J.:

1. By means of this appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, in C.P. No. 576/2017, declaring the Respondent as the legally wedded wife of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty and his legal heir, thereby entitling her to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired property.

2. The background facts of the case are that the Respondent, Anusaya Mohanty, initiated C.P. No. 576 of 2017 before the Family Court, Bhubaneswar, seeking a declaration that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty and his rightful legal heir. The Respondent claimed that their marriage took place on 05.06.1966 as per Hindu rites and customs, and they lived together, raising two sons. She further alleged that the Appellant, Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty, was merely a nurse who worked with the deceased and had no legitimate marital relationship with him. The Family Court decreed the suit on 29.10.2021, declaring the Respondent as the legally wedded wife and legal heir of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty, entitling her to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired property. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellant filed MATA No. 96 of 2021 before this Court, challenging the decision on the grounds that she was not given a fair opportunity to present her case. The Appellant contended that her lawyer had passed away during the proceedings, and due to the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, she was unaware of the developments, leading to the case being decided in her absence. This Court, in its order dated 13.07.2023, observed that there was reasonable cause for the Appellant’s non-appearance and held that the Family Court’s judgment was passed without affording the Appellant proper opportunity to contest the matter.

Consequently, this Court set aside the judgment dated

29.10.2021 and remitted the matter back to the Family Court, Bhubaneswar, for fresh adjudication. Additionally, this Court issued an interim arrangement concerning the disputed property. Considering the advanced age of both parties with the Respondent approaching 80 years and the Appellant around 70 years, this Court directed that, until the final outcome of the case, the usufructs arising from the property would be shared in a 60:40 ratio, with

60% in favour of the Respondent, Anusaya Mohanty, and 40% in favour of the Appellant, Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty. Following the remission, the Family Court reheard the matter and passed a fresh judgment on 12.12.2023, once again declaring the Respondent as the legally wedded wife of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty and his legal heir, thereby reaffirming her right to inherit his ancestral and self-acquired property. As a result of the Family Court’s decision, the Appellant has preferred the present Matrimonial Appeal, challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2023.

3. Mr. B. Baug, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, contends that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, arguing that the Respondent’s prayer for a declaration of marital status should have been brought before the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, rather than under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. He further asserts that the suit is barred by limitation, as it was filed more than three years after the death of Late Kailash Chandra Mohanty, making it time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Additionally, Mr. Baug challenges the Family Court’s finding that the Respondent is the sole legal heir of the deceased, contending that the children born