Orissa High Court
WP(C)/5538/2026 of MAHUA RAY Vs BISWADARSHI DAS on 13 May 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5538 of 2026 Mahua Ray …. Petitioner Ms. Sk. Jabina Zahid, Advocate -versus- Biswadarshi Das …. Opp. Party CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 13.05.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 03. 1. On 26.02.2026, the matter was heard
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5538 of 2026
Mahua Ray
….
Petitioner
Ms. Sk. Jabina Zahid, Advocate
-versus-
Biswadarshi Das
….
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
13.05.2026 (Hybrid Mode)
03.
1. On 26.02.2026, the matter was heard at length and the following order was passed: “1. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner was heard at length. The writ application is filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 30.10.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in I.A. No.10 of 2022 arising out of C.P. No.1090 of 2022. The C.P. was filed by the husband in the marriage who is the father of the child- minor daughter born from the wedlock, seeking her custody under Section 38 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
2. The I.A. was filed by the father- petitioner seeking interim visitation and contact rights for the father as the child stays with her mother-wife in the marriage. The learned court has granted visitation and contact rights to the petitioner-father in IA/CP. Challenging the order granting visitation and contact rights to the father-opposite party herein, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the father had never visited the child earlier, nor seen the child. The learned Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-May-2026 20:19:22 Signature Not Verified trial court during pendency of the custody application has not interviewed the child for allowing visitation and contact rights.
3. In considered view of this Court for visitation and contact rights of the father who is also the natural guardian, both father and mother staying at Bhubaneswar, the mother having the custody of the child for the present, interview with the child is not necessary considering her age that is about eleven years. At her age, it will be difficult for her to take a view before the court whether her father should visit her or not.
4. Learned Senior Counsel seeks and has adjournment. The matter stands adjourned to be taken up in the week commencing 6th April, 2026.”
2. Today, the matter being in the list, memo of date is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner which states thus: “In the aforesaid case Advocate for the petitioner filed this memo, the writ petition has become infructuous as the Opposite Party has died last week. Accordingly, the present case does not survive for further adjudication and may kindly be dismissed as withdrawn.”
Memo shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be updated.
3. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Rajesh