SONALISA SATPATHY vs UMANATH DASH
- Court
- Odisha High Court
MATA/30/2017
ODHC010034082017
2026:OHC:257-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No. 30 of 2017
CNR No. ODHC010034082017
Sonalisa Satpathy Appellant
….
-Versus-
Umanath Dash …. Respondent
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Ms. Sagarika Sahoo, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Prusty,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
HON’BLE
J U D G M E N T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of Hearing: 20 August, 2026
nd
Date of Judgment: 2 November, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARISH TANDON, CJ.
1. The instant appeal is at the instance of the appellant/wife
assailing not only the decree for dissolution of marriage granted by
the Trial Court, but also relegating the appellant to file a separate
application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for
permanent alimony, if she so desires.
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 1 of 10
2. The facts emanating from the record reveals that an
application under Section 13 (i-a) of the said Act was filed by the
respondent/husband against the appellant seeking decree for
dissolution on the ground of cruelty allegedly perpetuated against the
husband. On the other hand the appellant/wife filed a petition under
Section 9 of the said Act for restitution of the conjugal right. Since
both the proceedings are interrelated and intertwined with each other,
the Trial Court decided to take up both the proceedings analogously
and disposed of the same by a common judgment. In order to put the
record straight, the Trial Court decreed the suit for dissolution of the
marriage having held that the appellant is guilty of committing cruelty
against the respondent and simultaneously dismissed the proceeding
for restitution of the conjugal right.
3.
The present single appeal is filed assailing the said composite
judgment touching upon the decree for dissolution of marriage and the
implied refusal to pass the order for permanent alimony. It can be thus
reasonably inferred that the appellant did not have any grievance with
regard to the dismissal of the application under Section 9 of the said
Act, but the challenge is basically founded upon the finding returned
by the Trial Court with regard to the allegation of cruelty. The
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 2 of 10
incident of cruelty is found by the Trial Court on a premise that the
insistence to live separately which tantamount to preventing the
husband to discharge the pious and solemn duty to take care of his old
ailing parents constitute a cruelty and, therefore, the husband is
entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage.
4. We would have proceeded to decide the appeal on such
finding whether it constitutes a mental cruelty on the husband leading
to decree for dissolution of marriage to be passed, but in course of the
proceedings of the instant appeal, the appellant/wife took a firm stand
that she abandoned her challenge against the decree for dissolution of
marriage on such ground, but restricted the scope of the instant appeal
on permanent alimony to be awarded to the appellant, which is
th
recorded in the order dated 24 April, 2025. Since the scope of the
appeal is restricted to the permanent alimony, the direction was passed
upon the parties to work out the amicable settlement on the quantum
th
of permanent alimony. The order dated 25 March, 2026 reflects the
stand of the appellant/wife where the she claimed the permanent
alimony of Rs.15,00,000.00 (rupees fifteen lakhs) from the
respondent/husband whereas the respondent/ husband agreed to pay a
sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lakhs), which would be evident
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 3 of 10
from the said order passed in the instant appeal. In view of the
aforesaid stand having been taken before this Court, the direction was
passed on the said date upon the husband to deposit a sum of
Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lakhs) with the Registrar (Judicial) of this
th
Court on or before 17 April, 2026 by way of Demand Draft. The
further direction was passed to keep the said amount if so deposited to
be invested in high interest yielding short term deposit scheme in any
Nationalized Bank with auto-renewal clause until further order of the
Court.
5. Both the counsels addressed the Court on such limited issue
and it is the specific stand of the respondent/husband that he has no
substantial income which would justify the quantum of
Rs.15,00,000.00 (rupees fifteen lakhs) towards permanent alimony.
The further stand of the respondent/husband is that he is staying with
his parents and totally dependent upon the pension received by his
father. The husband filed an affidavit of assets and liabilities in the
instant appeal wherefrom it appears that the husband was employed in
IndiaFirst Life Insurance Company Ltd. with a gross monthly salary
nearly Rs.30,000.00 (rupees thirty thousand) with other allowances
viz., house rent allowances, medical reimbursement, car maintenance,
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 4 of 10
petrol & fuel expenses reimbursement and leave travel assistance. The
said affidavit further reveals that the respondent has purchased a car
financed by State Bank of India, OUAT Branch and paying the
equated monthly installment amounting to Rs.10,000.00 (rupees ten
thousand) and odd per month. In course of hearing it is submitted
before this Court that he is no longer in the said employment and in
fact has applied for a certificate to be issued by the Bar Council of
st
Odisha after having resigned from the said service on 31 May, 2024
and, therefore, has no substantial income to sustain the wife by
providing an alimony.
6. The facts so unfurled from the record is the only piece of
evidence based upon which the permanent alimony is to be
ascertained and/or determined. It is somewhat undisputed that the
appellant/wife has no independent and sufficient income from any
source and is totally dependent upon her parents. There is no iota of
piece of evidence produced by the respondent/husband which would
lend support to the fact that the wife has sufficient income and,
therefore, we can safely proceed on the basis that the wife having no
independent source of income is depending upon her parents. Though
the stand is taken by the husband that presently he has no independent
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 5 of 10
source of income, but the documents placed on record would reveal
that he was in gainful employment in an Insurance Company and
voluntarily resigned with the object of pursuing the legal profession. It
is further evident from the record that the respondent/husband
purchased the car financed by the State Bank of India and there is no
evidence forthcoming that the husband has failed to discharge his
contractual obligation in payment of the monthly equated
installments. Though the stand is taken by the husband that after the
resignation, he is totally dependent upon the pension of the father, but
the record would reveal that he is still discharging the obligation of
payment of the monthly installments for the purchase of the car
financed by the nationalized bank. The income of the
respondent/husband is the personal information available to him and
in the event there is any suppression of the same, there is no infirmity
on the part of the Court to draw an adverse inference in this regard.
7. In course of the hearing of the instant appeal, the husband
volunteers to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lakhs) towards
the permanent alimony and a direction was issued upon him to deposit
the same in the Court. It is thus improbable that the husband has no
independent income, rather we can safely proceed on the basis that the
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 6 of 10
husband has suppressed the said income and taking a shelter that he is
totally dependent upon the pension of his father.
8. Section 25 of the said Act empowers the Court to pass a
decree for permanent alimony and maintenance having regard to the
income of the husband in conjunction with the other property and in
pursuit of determining the same, the conduct of the parties and other
circumstances of the case may also be the relevant factors. The
expression used in the said Section is exposit that while passing any
decree or any time subsequent thereto the Court may pass the
permanent alimony or maintenance depending upon the factors
indicated therein. The expression any decree engulfed within its
“ ”
fold all categories of decree as recognized under the said Act and is
not restricted to decree simpliciter for dissolution of marriage under
Section 13 of the Act. It is thus, an ancillary and incidental power
conferred upon the Court to grant permanent alimony not only at the
time of passing any decree, but subsequent thereto.
9. Once such power flows from the statutory provision, there is
no misconception that the Court may pass a decree for permanent
alimony either simultaneously with passing of any decree or
subsequent thereto and, therefore, if the Court fails to discharge such
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 7 of 10
statutory obligation, there is no fetter on the part of the Appellate
Court to pass a decree for permanent alimony in an appeal under
Section 28 of the said Act. At the very outset we must record that the
express ion “subsequent thereto” appearing in Section 25 of the said
Act would logically mean that even the Court passes any decree under
the said Act, yet it retains jurisdiction to pass a permanent alimony
subsequent thereto.
10. The question in the instant appeal is now restricted to the
liberty having been granted to the appellant to move a petition under
Section 25 of the said Act, which is to be determined and/or decided
on the anvil of the said provision. At the first glance it does not appear
that the Court has transgressed the barriers of Section 25 of the said
Act, but considering the hard reality that the parties have been
litigating for a considerable period of time, relegating the parties to
the trial court would simply prolong the litigation and would advance
the colossal delay in adjudication of their entitlement and/or right
originating from the statutory provision. There is no fetter on the part
of the Appellate Court to decide the same provided the documents
and/or the evidences available on record justify the same.
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 8 of 10
11. In the instant case the husband volunteers to pay a sum of
Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lakhs) towards the permanent alimony
and on the basis of such stand having been taken, this Court passed an
order for deposit of the said amount. The permanent alimony as
appearing from the language used in the said Section is to be
determined on the basis of the income of the respondent from its own
sources and the other properties fetching an income and, there is no
hindrance having put in applying the robust commonsense and the
experience gained in judicial dispensation and the hard realities of
life, even though the stand is taken that the respondent is now
unemployed, but the documents produced along with the affidavit
would reveal that the respondent is still discharging his obligation in
payment of the money for the loan taken to purchase the car. Even
respondent/husband volunteers to pay a permanent alimony of
Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lakhs), which raises a doubt on the
conduct of the husband in suppression of the actual income, which is
within his special knowledge. Considering the period of conjugal life
and other relevant factors, we feel that a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00
(rupees ten lakhs) as permanent alimony is just and reasonable for the
sustenance of the appellant/wife. We, therefore, modify the decree to
the extent that the respondent/husband shall pay a permanent alimony
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 9 of 10
of Rs.10,00,000.00 (rupees ten lakhs) to the appellant/wife within
three months from the date of the judgment. In the event a sum of
Rs.5,00,000.00 (rupees five lakhs) has already been deposited by the
husband in this Court, the same shall be adjusted against the
permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000.00 (rupees ten lakhs) and the
remaining amount shall be paid within the time stipulated
hereinabove. It is open to the appellant/wife to approach the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court, in the event the said amount has been
deposited by the respondent to disburse the said amount in the bank
account held by the appellant in any bank within two weeks from the
date of making such application.
12. The decree is modified to the extent as above. The MATA
stands disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances, there
is no order as to costs.
I agree.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
Arun Mishra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Nov-2026 10:50:06
MATA No. 30 of 2017 Page 10 of 10