“When someone tries to lay a guilt trip on you for being successful, remember that your guilt is some politician’s license to take what you worked for and give it to someone else who is more likely to vote for the politician who plays Santa Claus with your money.”
Don’t tell me we need more awareness.
News papers, TV debate shows, FB, Twitter, Street corners, everyone talks of how women cheat, how women file fake cases.
Regional language media regularly posts info on how women kill their husbands to elope / live with lover-boys. National media is full of Indrani Mukerjea type cases.
#fakeCases are now a mainstream issue
#thirdWaveFeminism is not a holy cow any longer. It’s being kicked around the world.
So, awareness IS there … We are drowning in awareness!!.
IMHO What we lack is the willingness to think before marriage and the willingness to fight after falling into a trap
I’m confident that this will change
Married in 1993, trouble starts soon after birth of kid circa 1996. There are claims of extra marital affairs etc. Wife leaves husband in 2000 and never returns. Husband wins ex parte divorce in 2003 (wife hasn’t appeared in spite of being served is what is said) . Wife stays silent till 2013 and then starts a case for divorce on grounds of cruelty !! In 2014 she claims that she NEVER knew of the earlier decree dated 2003 (i.e. for 11 years) !! Lower court dismisses wife’s claim. Matter reaches Orissa HC where HC says “Pay” because reconciliation is NOT possible !! Husband and his dad end by paying approx 62 lakhs !! Meanwhile the daughter is a major etc etc, still husband pays
ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
MATA No.118 of 2014 & MATA No.125 of 2014
Appeals under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 10.9.2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.P. No.460 of 2013 and the order dated 22.8.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.781 of 2002.
MATA No.118 of 2014
Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and another …… Appellants
Partha Sarathi Mishra …… Respondent
For Appellants: M/S. Bipin Bihari Jena, J.Bhagat, D.Pradhan and T.K.Jena
For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Sahu
MATA No.125 of 2014
Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra …… Appellant
Partha Sarathi Mishra …… Respondent
For Appellant: M/S. Bipin Bihari Jena, J.Bhagat, D.Pradhan and T.K.Jena
For Respondent : M/s.Rakesh Sahu, A.R.Panigrahi & Rajesh Sahu
Date of Order: 22.02.2016
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD PRASAD
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY
BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J.
Since both the above noted appeals were taken up analogously, this common order is being passed to dispose of both the appeals. The factual matrix of both the appeals are as follows:
2. Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra is appellant No.1 in Mata No.118 of 2014 and the sole appellant in MATA No.125 of 2014. Partha Sarathi Mishra is the sole respondent in both the above noted appeals. Their daughter-Anmol Mishra is appellant No.2 in MATA No.118 of 2014. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. A perusal of record shows that the marriage between Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Partha Sarathi Mishra was solemnized on 11.07.1993. Out of the wedlock, daughter, Anmol Mishra was born on 3.6.1996. Trouble started brewing between the spouses even before the daughter was born and got aggravated after the birth of the daughter. Dispute arose between the spouses due to alleged extra marital affairs. Thereafter, the allegation is that Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra went back to her father’s house in November, 2000 and never returned. In such background, theatre of action got shifted to Court rooms and that Partha Sarathi Mishra filed C.P. No.781 of 2002 under Sections 13 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage and for custody of their minor daughter, Anmol Mishra in the Family Court, Cuttack. Despite summons, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra did not appear and accordingly, on 22.8.2003, the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack decreed Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002 ex parte against Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and dissolved their marriage by passing a decree of divorce. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack further directed to give the custody of the then minor daughter, Anmol Mishra to Partha Sarathi Mishra. In 2013, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra filed Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013 before the Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. She also filed Interlocutory Application No.118 of 2013 claiming interim maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter, Anmol Mishra in Family Court, Bhubaneswar. During pendency of Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013, Anmol Mishra became a major on 3.6.2014. According to Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, she came to know about order dated 22.8.2013 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002 on 16.8.2014. However, on 10.9.2014, Civil Proceeding No.460 of 2013 was disposed of along with I.A. No.118 of 2013 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar holding that the cases were not at all maintainable in the background of order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002. Challenging the said order dated 10.09.2014, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Anmol Mishra filed MATA No.118 of 2014 on 14.10.2014. Thereafter, on 22.10.2014, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra filed MATA No.125 of 2014 challenging the order dated 22.8.2003 passed in Civil Proceeding No.781 of 2002. On 20.4.2015, Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra, Anmol Mishra and Partha Sarathi Mishra appeared in Court along with their respective counsel. When this Court realized that the re-union was not possible, it went into the question with regard to quantum of permanent alimony. In order to give the parties a chance regarding settlement relating to permanent alimony, MATA No.118 of 2014 was directed to be taken up on 22.4.2015 along with MATA No.125 of 2014. On 22.4.2015, all the parties along with their respective counsel presented themselves before this Court and the matter was taken up in the Chambers. After a long deliberation, the parties came to an amicable settlement on following terms and conditions relating to all the disputes between them. The terms of settlement were as follows:-
- “That the two Federal Bank Limited Certificates issued by Cuttack
Branch from Account No.13770300116517 dated 6.8.2011 and Account
No.13770300116012 dated 12.7.2011, both standing in the joint names
of Sri Parthasarathi Mishra and Anmol Mishra, wherein it is mentioned
that either or survivor can get them encashed, the first certificate
having maturity value of Rs.7,44,274.00 and the subsequent having
maturity value of Rs.7,07,317.00 be handed over to Anmol Mishra who
is entitled to get them encahsed on maturity. The said certificates
have been handed over to Anmol Mishra in presence of the counsel for
both sides as well as the father and she is directed to make an
endorsement regarding receipt thereof on the order-sheet of this
- That the bank account in the Federal Bank Limited opened in the
name of Anmol Mishra, being bank Account no.125 (New No.1257) will
continue with Anmol Mishra and the father will hand over the passbook
of the said bank account to Anmol Mishra on 12.5.2015, when this
matter shall come up again.
- That the father Parthasarathi Mishra will give a draft of
Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) in the name of Anmol Mishra on
12th May, 2015.
- That the father will come with a draft of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees
Twenth lakhs) on 3rd of July, 2015 in the name of Madhusmita Pujari @
- That the father Parthasarathi Mishra will come with another bank
draft of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight lakhs) in the name of
Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra on 5th January, 2016.The above five terms and conditions have been accepted and agreed to
by both the sides in presence of their respective counsel on their
own volition without any threat, force, coercion or mis-
representation. This is in full and final settlement. These terms and
conditions, we repeat, are in full and final settlement of all the
disputes of any nature between the parties.”
4. The matter was further taken up on 12.5.2015, 3.7.2015, 10.12.2015 and finally on 5.1.2016. By 5.1.2016 the terms of settlement as delineated on 22.4.2015 have been implemented. Accordingly, this Court recorded that there remained no other dispute between the parties. In such background, nothing remains to be decided in both the appeals. However, before giving a quietus to the matter, it is directed that since the matters have ended in compromise, all the allegations and counter allegations made by the parties should be ignored and should have no effect in future, so that the future lives of the parties, particularly, that of the daughter, Anmol Mishra would in no way be affected. However, we make it clear that we have not interfered with the order dated 22.8.2003 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack dissolving the marriage between Madhusmita Pujari @ Mishra and Parthasarathi Mishra passed in C.P. No.781 of 2002. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
Both the above noted appeals are accordingly disposed of.
Biswajit Mohanty, J.
Vinod Prasad, J. I agree.
Vinod Prasad, J.
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Dated 22nd February, 2016
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
During the initial days of the British conquest of India we’ll heard of brutal stories where Kings had to pawn their own sons to the British in return for peace
One such instance comes to light in the life of TIPPU SULTAN the great king of Mysore
His two sons were captured by the British and kept as hostages in exchange for respite from attacks on Tippu’s kingdom
Tippu was supposed to have been heartbroken after losing his sons
In today’s flights wives often act worse then the British rulers
They take away money and the children and in some cases even insist that the surname of children be changed
Here is one such case in which the wife in addition to taking money also insists that the family name of the son be changed
This is a reported case taken from public records on the Internet and shared here for the benefit of fellow leaders
We present this case with a very heavy heart but at the same time we all need to know the stark reality that is staring at a married Indian Male !!
Punjab-Haryana High Court
_______ Singh vs _______ Arora on 15 February, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-52-M-2015(O&M) Decided on : 12th February, 2016
________ Singh … appellant. VERSUS
__________ Arora …. Respondent.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ashwani Sharma, for the Respondent
RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (Oral)
The appellant challenges judgment and decree dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali). The parties were referred to mediation where they have settled their dispute in the following terms:
‘1. That both the parties have agreed to divorce each other and agreed to accept the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Court of Ld. Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali, granting divorce to the parties.
2. That _________ Arora-Husband has agreed to give Rs.13.5 lacs as permanent alimony and maintenance to his wife _______ Chugh in lieu of divorce and the same offer has been accepted by wife _______ Chugh in full and final.
3. That ________ Arora-husband has brought two demand drafts in the names and amounts as mentioned below and has given the same to the wife _______ Chu gh, which she has accepted:- a) Demand Draft of Rs.3,50,000/- in the name of wife ________ Chugh Demand Draft No. 091029 dated 11.07.2015 is of State Bank of India, Palampur Branch (Himachal Pradesh). b) Demand Draft of Rs.10,00,000/- in the name of son Bhavya Demand Draft No. 091028 dated 11.07.2015 is of State Bank of India, Palampur Branch (Himachal Pradesh).
4. That it has been further agreed that no further maintenance and arrears of maintenance etc. in future shall be claimed by _______ Chugh- wife and her son ‘Bhavya’.
5. That it has been further agreed that ______ Chugh-wife shall not lay any claim in future with regard to her son against _______ Arora-husband of any kind or in property of ________ Arora.
6. That it has been agreed between the parties that _______ Chugh-wife will withdraw the present FAO No. M-52 of 2015 and also withdraw the maintenance suit as well as complaint pending before the Women Cell Mohali. It has also been agreed that the husband ________ Arora will withdraw all the complaints before the courts and banks as well as any other litigation filed by him against his wife-______ Chugh.
7. It has been further agreed between the parties that neither party will indulge in filing any sort of complaint in future against each other or family members.
8. It has been further agreed between the parties that the husband _______ Arora will have no objection to the removal of surname ‘Arora’ after the name of his son ‘Bhavya’ and he also will have no objection in correction of the name of Grandfather of son ‘Bhavya from ‘Sham Arora’ to ‘Radhey Shyam Arora’. The husband ________ Arora will cooperate and shall hand over the necessary documents in this regard to wife-_______ Chugh.
9. It has been further agreed between the parties that the custody of their child Bhavya will remain with the wife-_______ Chugh and the husband- _______ Arora will not claim the custody of the child in future in any manner whatsoever. Further it has been agreed that the husband-________ Arora will not have any visiting rights to see his child ‘Bhavya’.
10. The parties to the dispute undertake not to institute any unwanted litigation against each other. With the execution of the present compromise, entire dispute between the parties shall stand settled and both the parties shall be free to lead their life as per their own wishes.
Counsel for the appellant states that he has instructions to withdraw the appeal but the respondent may be directed to withdraw a complaint that he has filed against the appellant in the Bank, where she is employed.
Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent shall forthwith, within a week withdraw the appeal.
In view of the settlement and the statement made by counsel for the parties, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn by affirming judgment and decree dated 04.12.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
In case the respondent does not withdraw the complaint, the appellant would be at liberty to approach this Court for further directions.
(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE
(LISA GILL) JUDGE
12th February, 2016