The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissed an application for adjournment in a revision petition filed by a wife seeking enhancement of maintenance. The court noted the eleven-year delay in curing defects despite court direction and directed the petitioner to move the appropriate court separately for maintenance enhancement.
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. 36 of 2011
Smt. Jyostna Rani Mohanty
Petitioner
Mr. Sidhartha Das, Advocate
-versus-
…. Susanta Kumar Mohanty Opp. Party
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA ORDER
Order No.
13.07.2022
28th February, 2010 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack in Cr.P. No.803 of 2008.
RPFAM Petitioner seeks for enhancement of the maintenance amount directed to be paid to her. Since eleven years have already elapsed from the date of filing of the RPFAM and the Petitioner has not taken any step for removal of the defect in spite of direction of this Court, I am not inclined to adjourn the matter, as prayed for.
s.s.satapathy
Page 1 of 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to an adjournment for removing defects in the presentation of the petition after eleven years of pendency.
Whether the petition for enhancement of maintenance allowance is maintainable in the current status.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Jyostna Rani Mohanty
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
