A revision petition challenging a family court maintenance order was dismissed as infructuous due to the efflux of time. An interim order was vacated.
RPFAM dismissed as infructuous; interim order 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. 53 OF 2010
Srikanta Nayak
…. Petitioner
Mr. Radharaman Das Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
…. Gitanjali Nayak and another Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
22.02.2023
learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No.362 of 2006 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.54,600/- as arrear maintenance to the Opposite Parties, failing which the Petitioner was directed to be detained in jail custody for 1680 days.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms
Judge
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the maintenance order dated 16th January, 2010 for payment of arrears and detention in jail is infructuous due to the efflux of time?
Srikanta Nayak
Gitanjali Nayak
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
