The High Court of Ori at C linked the application for modification of the order dated 03.08.202 concerning permanent alimony and directed service of notice on the respondent. Counsel proved service via receipt memo.
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
MATA No.92 of 2020
Sasmita Panda @ Satapathy ..……. Appellant Mr. Ashok Kumar Das, Advocate
-Versus-
Dipankar Satpathy ..…….. Respondent Mr. G.K. Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
02.12.2022
I.A. No.299 of 2022
Order No.
18. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant.
4. The appellant has urged this Court to modify that part of the order, where it has been stated that “Decree be drawn in terms of the above after the deposit of the said amount, which has been determined as permanent alimony, in the mode as directed”.
5. Issue notice.
2
6. Notice is made returnable on 21.12.2022.
7. The appellant shall serve a copy of the notice on the respondent by Speed Post with A.D. in both present and permanent address of the respondent.
8. Postal requisites for that purpose will be filed on 05.12.2022.
9. Mr. Das, learned counsel has submitted that a copy of this application has already been served on learned counsel for the
respondent, who has been appearing for the respondent in MATA No.92 of 2020. He has also filed the receipt memo, from which, it appears that the counsel for the respondent has acknowledged the receipt of copy of the application for modification. The memo is taken
on record.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo) Judge
Subhasis
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether notice should be issued for the application to modify the earlier order regarding permanent alimony.
Whether the copy of the application was duly served on the respondent's counsel.
Sasmita Panda @ Satapathy
Dipankar Satpathy
S. Talapatra
M.S. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
