Disposed

Manoj Ku.Nayak v. Renubala Samantaray

Orissa HC5 May 2023RPFAM/155/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Cuttack disposed of a RPFAM without interfering with impugned maintenance and Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. orders. It directed the petitioner to file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for variation of maintenance, considering the respondent's new employment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for variation of maintenance; no interference with impugned orders.

Manoj Ku.Nayak Vs Renubala Samantaray — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No. 155 OF 2017

¶2

Manoj Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Arun Kumar Das, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Renubala Samantaray

¶6

…. Opp. Party None

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

05.05.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the ex parte order dated 11^th September, 2015 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daspalla, Nayagarh in Crl. Misc. Case No.07 of 2015, whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 23^rd May, 2015.

¶15

The Petitioner also assails the judgment dated 19^th May, 2017 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh in Crl. M.P. No.555 of 2016, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., has been rejected.

¶16

Although Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner made a lengthy argument on the merits of the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 3, but in course of argument, he submits that the Opposite Party has in the meantime been appointed as a teacher and has sufficient means to maintain herself. He, therefore, submits that interest of justice will be best served, if the Petitioner

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

files an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for variation of the order of maintenance.

¶20

None appears for the Opposite Party although she is represented through learned counsel.

¶21

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court without interfering with the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 3, disposes of the RPFAM with a direction that in the event, the Petitioner files an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., the same shall be considered in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶22

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶23

MADH Digitally signed by USMITA MADHUSMITA SAHOO SAHOO Date: 2023.05.05 18:45:20 +05'30' ms

¶24

application.

¶25

(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Manoj Ku.Nayak v. Renubala Samantaray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Ku.Nayak v. Renubala Samantaray

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabinarayan Parida Vs Jayanti Parida

Mamata Samantaray Vs Saraswati Patra

Gangadhar Mohanty Vs Pramod Mohanty

Kabiruddin Pyarali Vs State of Odisha

Purna Ch.Chhatria Vs Prativa Chhatria

Prajna Priyadarshini Giri Vs Subrat Giri