Appeal against Family Court order directing monthly maintenance. Court found petitioner failed to oppose maintenance claim or adduce evidence of unemployment; relationship and夫人's inability to maintain herself were undisputed; dismissal of appeal upheld.
Interim order dated 29th March, 2018 vacated.
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. 150 OF 2017
Manoranjan Sing …. Petitioner
Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Pratima Sing
…. Opp. Party Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
18.04.2023
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
to file objection and cross-examine the Opposite Party, who was examined as P.W.1. As such, learned Judge, Family Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order under Annexure-2.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
ms
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim of unemployment justifies interfering with the maintenance order.
Whether the lower court erred in fixing maintenance when the petitioner did not file an objection or adduce evidence.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manoranjan Sing
Pratima Sing
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
