IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

MATA No.38 of 2020

MATA No.38 of 2020 & 104 of 2020

Manoj Senapati

(in MATA No.38 of 2020)

Swati Patra

(in MATA No.104 of 2020)

&.

Appellants

Mr. A. Pattnaik, Advocate in MATA No.38 of 2020

Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate in MATA No.104 of 2020

-versus-

Swati Patra

(in MATA No.38 of 2020)

Manoj Senapati

(in MATA No.104 of 2020)

&.

Respondents

Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate in MATA No.38 of 2020

Mr. A. Pattnaik, Advocate in MATA No.104 of 2020

CORAM:

SHRI JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

7.7.2022

Order No.

10.

1. The matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. A. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the

Appellant in MATA No.38 of 2020 and the Respondent in MATA

No.104 of 2020 as well as Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel

appearing for the Respondent in MATA No.38 of 2020 and the

Appellant in MATA No.104 of 2020.

3. So far the appeal being MATA No.38 of 2020 is concerned, this

appeal has been heard with appeal being MATA No.104 of 2020

filed by the Respondent of MATA No.38 of 2020. In MATA

No.104 of 2020, the appellant is represented by Mr. A.P. Bose,

learned counsel whereas Mr. A. Pattanaik, learned counsel

Page 2 of 4

represents the Respondent (husband). It is needless to mention that

both the appeals emerge from the same judgment i.e. judgment

dated 20^th December, 2019 delivered in C.P. No.5 of 2014 by the

Judge, Family Court, Puri. On agreement by the counsel, by order

dated 30^th June, 2022, this court has observed that, both the appeals

have been structured on legality of determination of the alimony.

That apart, the question relating to return of Streedhan, as described

in the Schedule 8A9 of the divorce petition, will be considered by us

as ancillary to the main issue.

4. Both the counsel for the parties have stated before us that both

the Appellant and the Respondent in the respective appeals have

contracted second marriage after the decree of divorce was passed

and they are now leading their respective conjugal lives without

interference of each other.

5. In the appeal being MATA No.38 of 2020, the Appellant has

challenged the quantum of the alimony and the directions to return

Streedhan as per the Schedule 8A9 of the divorce petition. In the

appeal being MATA No.104 of 2020, the Appellant has questioned

the determination of alimony, as according to the said appellant, the

quantum is so less, it requires to be upgraded with a just amount.

6. We have heard the counsel for the parties. In the changed

circumstances, we are of the view that, on the day of passing of the

judgment, the quantum of alimony as was determined to be paid to

the Respondent of the appeal being MATA No.38 of 2020, does not

require any interference from us. The Respondent in that appeal

[MATA No.38 of 2020] has re-married and hence, the alimony that

has assessed, according to us, be deemed as adequate and sufficient.

Page 3 of 4

So far the issue of returning Streedhan is concerned, Mr. A.

Pattanaik has strenuously argued that there is no evidence that

Streedhan was handed over to the Appellant, i.e, the husband and

those are retained by him. We are unable to accept that contention,

inasmuch as, the Respondent in MATA No.38 of 2020, in her

testimony, has clearly stated that even though she was unemployed

at the time of marriage, but from the riches of her father, those

golden ornaments and other articles were purchased and given to

her on the occasion of marriage. Those gold ornaments and other

articles were sent to the custody of the appellant in MATA No.38

of 2020 and he had never returned those articles including the gold

ornaments. In this regard, the Judge, Family Court, Prui, while

issuing the direction to return Streedhan, has observed in para 8 of

the judgment that, the Respon