Petitioner challenged maintenance order ignoring disputes over relationship. High Court held it could not re-appreciate evidence and dismissed appeal.
RPFAM No. 41 of 2014 stands dismissed.
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. 41 OF 2014
Dillip Khanda
…. Petitioner
Ms. Debadipta Sahoo, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate
-versus-
Kumari Nayak and another
…. Opp. Parties None
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
15.02.2023
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
document, whatsoever, was filed by the Opposite Party No.1 to establish that she is the legally married wife of the Petitioner.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
relationship with many persons and because of that Opposite Party No.2 was born. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court has rightly held that the assertion made by the Petitioner that he did not know the Opposite Party No.1 is not believable.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
ms
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can re-appreciate evidence from the Family Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Whether the impugned order granting maintenance is sustainable in light of disputed relationships alleged by the petitioner.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dillip Khanda
Kumari Nayak
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
