Disposed

Ratnakar Pani v. Sasmita Pani

Orissa HC7 Jan 2020CRLMP/183/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court considered a petition to quash an interim maintenance order. It found no prima facie violation regarding maintenance payments. The Court disposed of the application, directed the lower court to make final disposal within six months, and affirmed the interim arrangement pending the final hearing.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; interim arrangement continues till disposal of main suit.

Ratnakar Pani Vs Sasmita Pani — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

CRLMP No. 183 of 2017

¶2

07.01.2020

¶3

Heard Mr. B. Pasayat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Pattnaik, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 20.01.2017 in Annexure-1 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in CRP No.80 of 2016 by which it has been directed that the petitioner-husband would pay the interim maintenance @Rs.3000/- per month to opposite party no.1-wife and @Rs.4500/- per month to opposite party no.2, daughter from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 01.09.2016 till final disposal of CRP No.80 of 2016.

¶5

While entertaining this application, this Court passed interim order on 10.05.2017 to the extent that subject to the petitioner continuing to pay Rs.2000/- to opposite party no.1 and Rs.3500/- to opposite party no.2 per month, the impugned order dated 20.01.2017 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in CRP No.80 of 2016 shall remain stayed.

¶6

As it appears, the petitioner has already filed an affidavit on 09.12.2019 stating that he has complied with the order dated 10.05.2017 passed by this Court and, as such, for the period from 29.06.2017 to 04.12.2019, he has already paid Rs.60,000/- to opposite party no.1 and Rs.1,05,000/- to opposite party no.2. But, opposite party no.1 filed an affidavit on 10.12.2019 disputing such fact and in the said affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.1,65,000/-, i.e., Rs.5500/- w.e.f. 10.05.2017 (30 months) and, as such, till date they have received Rs.1,48,000/-.

¶7

Thereby, the petitioner is liable to pay further Rs.17,000/- to the opposite parties.

¶8

In such view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner has complied with the interim order passed by this Court on 10.05.2017. Therefore, if at all any arrear amount is outstanding, the same shall be considered and adjudicated by the court below in course of final disposal of the matter. With agreement of the parties, this Court disposed of the CRLMP directing the court below to dispose of CRP No.80 of 2016 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production/communication of this order. The interim arrangement made by this Court shall continue till disposal of CRP No.80 of 2016. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶9

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶10

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶11

Ashok

Ratnakar Pani v. Sasmita Pani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratnakar Pani v. Sasmita Pani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chinmaya Patra Vs State of Odisha

Shantanu Ku.Mahalik Vs Commnr.-Cum-Secy.

Prasanta Kumar Dash Vs Truptirani Rath

Jyotshnarani Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Jema Tarei Vs State of Orissa

Artha Chhatria Vs State of Orissa