The application for revision (RPFAM) challenging a maintenance order was dismissed for non-prosecution. The court held that the petitioner's counsel, aware of future listing dates, was not prepared to argue the matter today.
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 RPFAM No. 258 of 2022 Basava Srihari …. Petitioner
…. Petitioner Mr. Biswaranjan Maharatha, Advocate
-versus-
Basava Lavanya and another
…. Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER
Order No.
07.12.2022
September, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rayagada in CRP No.17 of 2022, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/per month to the Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 till he attains majority, from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 24th February, 2022.
s.s.satapathy
Page 1 of 1
Basava Srihari
Basava Lavanya
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
