Partly allowed

Haribandhu Setha v. Sovasri Dalai@Setha

Orissa HC27 Jan 2023WP(C)/8544/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding maintenance under a family pension. Despite noting the moral obligation, it held that such obligation did not justify interference. However, considering the petitioner provided a new account and the respondent's consent to pay 15 months' arrears (Rs. 6,000), the Court directed the payment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Opposite Party No.1 to deposit Rs. 6,000 (15 months arrear) and Rs. 2,000 to the petitioner's new account by 31.01.2023.

Haribandhu Setha Vs Sovasri Dalai@Setha — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.8544 of 2007

¶3

Haribandhu Setha & Anr.

¶4

…. Petitioner(s) Mr. B. Nayak, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Sovasri Dalai @ Setha & Ors. Opposite Party(s) Mr. A.K. Patra, Advocate for O.P.1 Mr. S. Mishra, ASC for O.Ps.2 to 4

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Order No.

05.

ORDER 27.01.2023

1. Entering into further hearing this Court from the submissions of respective parties gathers, in disposal of a writ petition vide O.J.C. No.12909 of 1997 this Court keeping in view the moral obligation to be discharged by Opposite Party No.1 at the relevant point of time, directed for paying a sum of Rs.400/- per month as maintenance of the Petitioners therein. In course of hearing it has been brought to the notice of this Court that Petitioners are in enjoyment of family pension and in the meantime the old lady has got an able son. Further in course of further hearing in the presence of the parties, a statement is made that arrear so far it relates to a sum of Rs.400/- per month has been cleared up to October, 2021 and thereafter there could not be deposit of the amount for closure of the account involved due to death of the party and there has been no information about opening of new account. Today in course of submission a detail of the account has been provided to Mr. Patra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1. Therefore Mr. Patra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submits that there is no

¶12

Page 1 of 2

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

hesitation in depositing the arrears as on today appearing to be of fifteen months in the meantime and coming to Rs.6,000/- (rupees six thousand).

¶15

2. Considering the submissions made by the parties and looking to the orders passed in O.J.C. No.12909 of 1997, this Court is of the opinion that moral obligations between the parties cannot give a right to a party to seek interference in such decision.

¶16

3. Be that as it may, considering that a fresh account number is already provided by the Petitioner and taking into consideration the consent of Mr. Patra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1 showing the readiness to deposit the arrear, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to deposit fifteen months’ arrear coming to a sum of Rs.6000/- along with a further sum of Rs.2,000/- at least by Tuesday (31^st January, 2023). This Court declines to entertain the other prayer made in this writ petition. Petitioners, if have any other claim, are at liberty to approach any other law.

¶17

4. Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above order.

¶18

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

¶19

Ayaskanta Jena

¶20

Page 2 of 2

Haribandhu Setha v. Sovasri Dalai@Setha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haribandhu Setha v. Sovasri Dalai@Setha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Satapathy Vs State of Odisha.

Hemanta Dandasena Vs State and Ors.

Kuldip Pr.Sahu Vs Singaria Majhi andORS

Gouri Bala Nayak Vs Dibakar Majhi,Addl. Tahasildar,Ghasipura

Rajendra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Gada @ Gadadhar Sahu Vs State of Odisha