{"id":179095,"date":"1992-03-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-03-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992"},"modified":"2018-04-09T08:53:04","modified_gmt":"2018-04-09T03:23:04","slug":"kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992","title":{"rendered":"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Orissa High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: II (1992) DMC 10<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: P Misra<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: P Misra<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>P.C. Misra, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. Defendant in Title Suit No. 17 of 1987 of the Court<br \/>\nof Munsif, Sambalpur is the appellant in this appeal challenging the reversing<br \/>\njudgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Sambalpur in Title Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 36\/11 of 1987\/88. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a declaration<br \/>\nthat she .is the wife of Bharat Patel (since dead) and she is entitled to get the<br \/>\nfamily pension on account of the death of her husband.\n<\/p>\n<p>Bharat Patel was working as a Daftari in the Collectorate of<br \/>\nSambalpur. He died on 4.10.1975. After his death the plaintiff as the second<br \/>\nwife of late Bharat was Paid family pension, gratuity etc. for the period from 5.10.1975 to 28.2.1982. By order dated 12.3.1982 the Collector, Sambalpur<br \/>\nwithheld the family pension sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on the ground<br \/>\nthat the plaintiff is not legally married wife of late Bharat Patel. The plaintiff<br \/>\nmade a representation to the Collector as well as to the Accountant General<br \/>\nOrissa alleging that she is the legally married second wife of late Bharat Patel<br \/>\nand is entitled to receive the family pension etc. Thereupon the plaintiff was<br \/>\ninstructed in March, 1986 to produce succession certificate from the competent<br \/>\nCourt in support of her claim. The plaintiff thereafter filed this suit for the<br \/>\naforesaid declaration.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. It was alleged in the plaint Bharat Patel had married defendant in the year 1954 and there was a divorce between them in the year 1964.A document to that effect has been executed on 21.1.1964 by the defendant<br \/>\nin presence of witnesses in favour of Bharat Patel and thus the marriage stood<br \/>\ndissolved with effect from that date. It has also been alleged that the divorce<br \/>\nwas effected on the consent of both parties, according to their caste custom<br \/>\nand social rites prevailing in their society. After the dissolution of marriage<br \/>\nbetween Bharat Patel and the defendant, the defendant married on Dhaneswar<br \/>\nof Modipara and had lived as husband and wife till the year 1969 It is the<br \/>\nallegation of the plaintiff that Bharat thereafter married the plaintiff on<br \/>\n2.7.1964 in &#8216;Bandani form of marriage and both of them lived as husband and<br \/>\nwife till the death of Bharat. In evidence of marriage of the plaintiff Bharat<br \/>\nalso executed a document on 2.7.1964. In these circumstances, the plaintiff<br \/>\nprays for the aforesaid declaration.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. It appears from the record that defendant appeared through an<br \/>\nAdvocate on receipt of the summons issued in the suit, and applied for adjournment on 1.5.1987 to enable her to file her written statement. Time was granted<br \/>\ntill 1.7.1987, but the defendant did not appear on the adjourned date and was<br \/>\nset ex-parte. The Court thereafter called upon the plaintiff to adduce evidence<br \/>\nex-parte. On consideration of the ex-parte evidence, the Court was not<br \/>\nsatisfied that the plaintiff has been able to establish the allegations made in the<br \/>\nplaint. Consequently the suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court The<br \/>\nplaintiff thereafter carried up the matter in appeal and the appellate court<br \/>\nallowed the appeal recording a finding to the effect that the obsertion made by<br \/>\nby the trial Court in the impugned judgment was contrary to law. The proposition of law was enunciated by the lower appellate Court that there is no bar<br \/>\nanywhere in any law for a widow getting married for the second time and<br \/>\nafter a widow gets remarried all her claims and connection with the family of<br \/>\nthe deceased husband would automatically cease. Then the lower appellate Court<br \/>\njumped to a conclusion that the finding of the trial Court is erroneous and<br \/>\nreversed the same. Consequently the suit was decreed. Hence this appeal<br \/>\nby the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the plaintiff having failed to prove custom governing the parties that a divorce is permissible without going to Court of law, the plaintiff could not succeed in the suit. His second contention is that once the plaintiff failed to establish .<br \/>\nthat there was a divorce legally effected between the defendant and deceased<br \/>\nBharat Patel, the second marriage is bound to be held to be void and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe plaintiff cannot have the status of a wife of late Bharat Patel. He has also<br \/>\nargued that the suit is seriously barred by limitation and should have been dismissed on that count alone.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. The learned Counsed appearing for the respondent, in reply to<br \/>\nthe aforesaid contentions has argued that the defendant did not file any written<br \/>\nstatement in the suit and, therefore, it was permissible for the Court to presume<br \/>\nthat she has admitted the allegations made in the plaint. Relying on the<br \/>\nprovision of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure,<br \/>\nit was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent that since the<br \/>\ndefendant did not file any pleading it was permissible for the Court to. pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint and therefore, the defendant has no locus standi to challenge the correctness of the statement<br \/>\nmade in the plaint at this stage. According to him, the Court must proceed<br \/>\non the assumption that the facts alleged in the plaint stand proved and the<br \/>\nplaintiff was not obliged to adduce any evidence in support thereof. He has<br \/>\nalso referred to Rule 10 of Order 8 of the Code, which provides that where<br \/>\nany party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9<br \/>\nfails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, the<br \/>\nCourt shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation<br \/>\nto the suit as it thinks fit. Here the defendant having failed to present a<br \/>\nwritten statement, the Court could pronounce the judgment assuming that the<br \/>\nplaint allegations are not disputed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the respondent as noted<br \/>\nabove, are not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Order 8,<br \/>\nRule 5 of the C.P.C. requires that every allegation of fact in the plaint if not<br \/>\ndenied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in<br \/>\nthe pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against<br \/>\na person under disability. It is not a case where the defendant has filed a<br \/>\nwritten statement without denying the facts alleged in the plaint specifically,<br \/>\nThe proviso to the said Sub-rule authorises the Court that it may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. Assuming that by non-filing of written statement by the defendant, the consequence as enumerated in Sub-rule (1) will follow, it was still within the discretion of the Court to require the plaintiff to prove the facts alleged in the plaint. In this case the Court did not proceed on the basis that the facts stated in the plaint stand admitted by non-filing of the written statement by the defendant, but required the plaintiff to adduce evidence to prove the facts alleged in the plaint. Similar is the situation so far as the Rule 10 of Order 8 is concerned. In the event, the defendant does not file written statement within the period granted by the Court, the said rule authorises the Court to pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such order in relation to the<br \/>\nsuit as it thinks fit. The Court in this case adopted the course requiring the<br \/>\nplaintiff to prove the facts by adducing evidence. Thus it is not a case where<br \/>\nthe Court purports to proceed either on Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 or under Rule<br \/>\n10 of Order 8 of the C.P.C. In other words, the Court in this case granted<br \/>\nthe plaintiff to prove the facts on which she relies to obtain the relief prayed<br \/>\nfor in the plaint. It, therefore, now requires to be determined as to whether<br \/>\nthe plaintiff was entitled to a decree on the evidence adduced in the suit. It is<br \/>\nfundamental that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 contains a provision overriding effect of the Act. In this connection, Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act may be extracted as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4. Overriding effect of Act-Save as otherwise expressly provided<br \/>\nin this Act-\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or<br \/>\nusage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to<br \/>\nany matter for which provision is made in this Act;\n<\/p>\n<p> (b) any other law in force immediately, before the commencement<br \/>\nof this Act shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent<br \/>\nwith any of the provisions contained in this Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. The Act makes a provision for dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, it would not have been permissible for any party to claim that the<br \/>\nmarriage was dissolved otherwise then in a proceeding as provided in the Act,<br \/>\nbut for Section 29 Sub-section (2) of the said Act. According to the said Sub-section, nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect any right<br \/>\nrecognised by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution of a Hindu marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act. This enables a pary to obtain a dissolution of marriage if such a right is recognized by custom or is conferred by a special enactment. In the present case, the plaintiff alleged _that the dissolution of marriage with<br \/>\nthe defendant was as per the custom prevalent among the parties to the suit.<br \/>\nThe law is fairly well settled that in order to prove that there exists a custom,<br \/>\nit is necessary to establish that the alleged custom was uniformly and continuously followed from time immemorial and is not opposed to public police. None<br \/>\nof the ingredients appears to have been found by the learned lower appellate<br \/>\nCourt while disposing of the appeal. It has merely referred to the observations of the learned trial Court which in his opinion is contrary to law and on<br \/>\nthat basis alone the judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The judgment<br \/>\nof the lower appellate Court cannot, therefore, be supported.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. From the evidence on record I would have dismissed the plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nsuit and closed the litigation at this stage, as the evidence itself, in my opinion,<br \/>\nis farless from the standard required by law in order to be entitled to relief<br \/>\nprayed for in the suit. But the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted<br \/>\nthat the defendant did not contest the suit in the trial Court for which reason<br \/>\nmuch of care was not given to adduce evidence as is normally required in a<br \/>\ncontesting suit. This argument of the learned Counsel for respondent appeals<br \/>\nto me and I, therefore, feel that the parties must be given an opportunity for<br \/>\nestablishing their rights by adducing further evidence in the suit itself. To<br \/>\nachieve the aforesaid purpose, I would set aside the judgment of the learned<br \/>\nCourts below and remand the suit to the trial Court for its fresh disposal in<br \/>\naccordance with law. The learned trial Court would give an opportunity to<br \/>\nthe defendant to file her written statement, if she chooses to file one and thereafter proceed to dispose of the suit giving opportunity to the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses already examined. Both parties would be at liberty<br \/>\nto adduce further evidence in the light of issues to be settled by the Court.<br \/>\nThis being a suit of the year 1987, the trial Court should take care for its<br \/>\nexpeditious disposal. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Orissa High Court Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992 Equivalent citations: II (1992) DMC 10 Author: P Misra Bench: P Misra JUDGMENT P.C. Misra, J. 1. Defendant in Title Suit No. 17 of 1987 of the Court of Munsif, Sambalpur is the appellant in this appeal challenging the reversing [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-orissa-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-09T03:23:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-09T03:23:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992\"},\"wordCount\":1942,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Orissa High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992\",\"name\":\"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-09T03:23:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-09T03:23:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992","datePublished":"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-09T03:23:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992"},"wordCount":1942,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Orissa High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992","name":"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-03-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-09T03:23:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamala-panda-pandiani-vs-mst-junha-patel-on-13-march-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamala Panda @ Pandiani vs Mst. Junha Patel on 13 March, 1992"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179095\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}