This court disposed of a revision petition challenging an ex parte maintenance order by allowing its withdrawal with an observation to consider the pendency of the petition while determining condonation of delay later.
RPFAM dismissed as withdrawn; observation made regarding condonation of delay for Family Court to consider.
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. 55 OF 2020
Baidyanath Bhoi
…. Petitioner
Mr. Diptendu Sundar Ray, Advocate
-versus-
Sangita Bhoi and another
…. Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
28.09.2022
RPFAM No. 55 OF 2020 & I.A. No.303 of 2022
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
ms
order, learned Family Court shall take into consideration the pendency of the RPFAM before this Court from 19th February, 2020 till date along with other grounds.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to condone the delay of nine years seventeen days in filing the RPFAM against an ex parte maintenance order.
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the RPFAM to avail remedy under proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baidyanath Bhoi
Sangita Bhoi
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
