Orissa High Court
WP(C)/24005/2012 of BHABANI S.SENAPATI Vs SASMITA SENAPATI on 10 July 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24005 of 2012 Bhabani Sankar Senapati …. Petitioner Mr. S. R. Behera, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.K. Pradhan, Advocate -versus- Sasmita Senapati …. Opp. Party CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 10.07.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24005 of 2012
Bhabani Sankar Senapati
….
Petitioner
Mr. S. R. Behera, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. D.K. Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
Sasmita Senapati
….
Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
10.07.2026 (Hybrid Mode)
05.
1. The matter was presented before this Court on 13.12.2012. Notices were issued by the Division Bench, as it was having determination on 29.01.2013. Interim order was passed on 29.01.2013 to the following effect:
“As an interim measure, operation of the impugned order shall remained stayed till the nest date subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) before the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda within a period of two weeks. On such deposit being made, the same shall be disbursed in favour of opposite party-wife.”
2. Thereafter the matter was listed before the 3rd Lok Adalat on 14.09.2024. Thereafter the matter is listed today for hearing under the heading ‘For Admission’.
3. Memo of date is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner which states thus:
“That in the above mentioned case the council for the petitioner have no instruction to proceed with the case.” (sic)
4. Apparently, the petitioner after filing of the matter is not interested in prosecuting the same. As per the office note dated 17.08.2024, the notice has sufficient after valid service on the sole opposite party. The opposite party has preferred not to appear before this Court. In such scenario, no purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending.
5. The petition is disposed of.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge
Radha Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Jul-2026 14:52:49 Signature Not Verified