p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRL. REV. No.544 of 2025 Chittaranjan Das …. Petitioner In person -versus- 1.Annirudha Behera 2.Gangadhar Pani 3.Janmejay Mallick 4.Rabindra Mallick …. Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 28.01.2026 02. 1. Assailing the order dated 1.7.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in CRP No.190 of 2024 in not entertaining the petition of the present Petitioner seeking annulment of the marriage of his daughter, this Criminal Revision has been filed. 2. Since the Petitioner is appearing in person, the matter was adjourned to this day giving an opportunity to him to address this Court about the ‘locus’ to challenge the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 3. The Petitioner, who is appearing in person, referring to Section 19 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, submits that he has locus standi to challenge the marriage of his daughter under the said Act. Page 2 of 3 4. For convenience of reference, the Section 19 of the Special Marriage Act, which is under Chapter IV, deals with consequences of marriage under this Act, is extracted hereunder; “19. Effect of marriage on member of undivided family.- The marriage solemnized under this Act of any member of an undivided family who professes the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina religions shall be deemed to effect his severance from such family.” 5. On perusal of the materials on record and on going through the impugned order dated 1.7.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in CRP No.190 of 2024, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding that “in order to file the petition under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act which deals with annulment and the same has to be filed either by the husband or by the wife to file the petition”. 6. For convenience of ready reference, the said Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act is quoted hereunder; “27. Divorce.―[(1)] Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent [(a) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or p. 3 (b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or] (c) is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for seven years or more for an offence as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); (d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or [(e) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent.” 7. On a perspicuous analysis of the materials on record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order as noted above. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision being devoid of merit stands rejected. (V. NARASINGH) Judge PKS