A writ petition filed by a father-in-law challenging a Family Court order refusing maintenance to his deceased son's widow. The High Court rejected the challenge, upholding the Family Court's finding based on lack of evidence showing the widow had the means to maintain herself. Petition dismissed.
Writ petition held devoid of merit and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8364 of 2020 (Through hybrid mode)
Dr. Panchanan Sahoo
…. Petitioner
Mr.B.Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
Subhashree Sahoo & others
…. Opposite Parties
Mr.P.K.Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
09.11.2021
Order No.
04.
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
satisfaction in terms of proviso and clauses (a) and (b) thereunder.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
absence of documentary evidence to show that opposite party, daughter-in-law had any financial means.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
RKS
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court erred in concluding that the applicant is liable to maintain the daughter-in-law under Section 19 proviso to sub-section (1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
Whether the burden of proof regarding inability to maintain shifts to the opposite party claiming liability under Section 19.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Panchanan Sahoo
Subhashree Sahoo
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
