20 Important Judgments Of Orissa High Court-2025

S. 175(3) BNSS | Mandatory For Magistrate To Hear Police Officer On Refusal To Register FIR Before Passing Order For Investigation: Orissa HCCase Title: Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 19The Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy held that before passing order for investigation, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to hear the submissions of the police officer upon his refusal to register First Information Report (FIR), apart from considering the application supported by an affidavit made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police and making proper inquiry. PAN-Aadhaar Linkage For Demat Accounts Constitutionally Valid: Orissa HC Dismisses Plea Of Ex-MP Against Mandatory Aadhaar UsageCase Title: Tathagata Satapathy v. HDFC Bank Ltd., Mumbai & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 33The Orissa High Court dismissed a plea made by former Member of Parliament (MP) Tathagata Satapathy challenging the requirement of mandatory linking of Aadhaar to Permanent Account Number (PAN) for the purpose of operating dematerialized accounts ('demat accounts'). While holding the aforesaid requirement to be constitutional and a reasonable restriction on 'right to privacy', the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –“The mandatory linking of Aadhaar with PAN and Demat accounts under Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act aligns with the constitutional principles laid down in Puttaswamy and its triple test: legality, necessity, and proportionality. Section 139AA satisfies this test as it is backed by a valid legislative mandate, serves a legitimate state interest, and imposes only a proportionate restriction on privacy.”Also Read: Any Vulnerability In Aadhaar Database Can Lead To Misuse Of Personal & Financial Info, Strengthening Security Framework Need Of Hour: Orissa HCS. 379 BNSS | Court Not Bound To Hold Preliminary Inquiry Before Making Or Refusing To Make Complaint: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Priyadarshini Amrita Panda v. Biswajit PatiCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 35The Orissa High Court held that it is not mandatory on the part of Court to hold a preliminary inquiry as provided under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) into commission of offences referred to in Section 215, BNSS in order to make or reject to make complaint. While clarifying the procedural provision, the Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed –“…it appears that Sec. 379 of BNSS does not mandate a preliminary enquiry, so also such a course may not be required to be adopted in every cases. However, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offence referred to in Sec. 215(1)(b) of the BNSS.”Section 25(2) Hindu Marriage Act | Court Can Grant Maintenance To Wife Exceeding The Amount Claimed By Her: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Nirmal Karnakar v. Parbati @ Parbati KarnakarCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 39The Orissa High Court ruled that a competent Court, considering facts and circumstances of the case as well as to provide just and fair means, can grant maintenance to wife exceeding the amount which she claimed in her application under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act'). Clarifying the disputed question concerning jurisdiction of Courts to grant enhanced maintenance, the Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed that the judicial discretion must be exercised to provide a fair and just maintenance amount, considering the dependent's actual needs and the payer's financial capability, even if the claim was initially understated.Orissa HC Issues Guidelines For Disposal Of Mutation Cases Based On Wills Executed Under Ex-Princely States, Says Probate Not RequiredCase Title: Ramesh Chandra Sahu & Anr. v. The State of OdishaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 47The Orissa High Court reiterated that probate of Wills executed in ex-princely states/Gadajat states is not necessary and thus, the revenue authorities can proceed for mutation on the basis of un-probated Wills in such areas. A Single Bench of Justice Ananda Chandra Behera referred to a number of precedents on the above position of law and clarified that –“If the Wills are executed in a place either outside the areas specified in the clauses of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or in respect of the immovable properties situated beyond the territories specified in clauses of Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, those areas/territories were under the ex-princely State called as Gadajat Wills, probate of such Wills are not required under law.”Children Born Out Of Void Marriage Entitled To Inherit Ancestral & Self-Acquired Property Of Hindu Father: Orissa High CourtCase Title: Smt. Sandhya Rani Sahoo @ Mohanty v. Smt. Anusaya MohantyCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 61The Division Bench of Justice Bibhu Prasad Routray and Justice...

20 Important Judgments Of Orissa High Court-2025

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags