IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK WP(C) No.23655 of 2025 Mamata Sahoo ....... Petitioner -Versus-

Aswini Kumar Sahoo ....... Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. R. K. Nayak, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr. A. N. Das, Advocate ----------------------------

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing & Judgment: 12.12.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.K. MISHRA, J.

The present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-wife, who is the Opposite Party in CP No.93 of 2019.

2. Impugned is the order dated 15.07.2025, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, vide which her application filed under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC, read with Section 10 of the Family Courts Act for impleading one Lopamudra Nayak as party to the said proceeding stood rejected recording the following reasons:-

“I have heard both the parties at length. Perused the records and connected materials available with it. On perusal of the petition for divorce filed by the petitioner/husband, it reveals that he has filed the petition with a prayer for dissolution of marriage dtd 13.07.2004 on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner/husband specifically mentioned the grounds of divorce in para No. 14 of his petition. That apart, the respondent/wife has not made any counter claim against the petitioner/husband. Court has power to direct a person to be made as a party to a case if such a person is a necessary party or that the Court feels the necessity of impleading him with a view to adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the case. The question involved in the case would mean, the questions concerning the parties to the case and not with the questions concerning third party. The Court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on application or without application of either party but the condition precedent is that the Court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settled all questions involved in the case. In the instant case, the original petition has been filed by the petitioner/husband against his wife/respondent seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion. So the husband has not taken specific ground of adultery against the respondent seeking a decree of divorce. Therefore filing of such a petition by the respondent/wife deserves no positive consideration, as such the same stands rejected.”

(Emphasis supplied)

3. Though no Counter has been filed till date opposing to the prayer made in the writ petition, on consent of the learned Counsel for the parties and permitting the Opposite Party- husband to have his oral objection to the prayer made in the writ petition, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the observations made in the impugned order submits, the Petitioner, who is the Opposite Party in CP No.93 of 2019, has categorically taken a stand in her Written Statement that the Petitioner-husband in CP No.93 of 2019 is staying in adultery with one of his office co- staff namely Lopamudra Nayak. Hence, she was justified in filing an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC to implead her as a party to the said proceeding. He further submits, despite making a specific averment to the said effect in the written statement, the learned Court below has incorrectly observed that the respondent/wife has not made any counter claim against the Petitioner/husband.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party- husband submits, the learned Court below was justified to reject such an application, as the Opposite Party never took such a stand of adultery in CP No.93 of 2019 seeking for a decree of divorce on such g