Revision against the appellate court's reduction of interim maintenance to the wife from Rs.4000 to Rs.3000. The High Court found no perversity or infirmity in the appellate reasoning and declined interference, permitting the petitioner to seek payment of arrears in installments before the trial court.
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
CRLREV No.135 of 2024
Chinmay Chintan Rout ….
Petitioner
Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
1. Ranjita Barik @ Rout
…. Opposite Parties
2. Chandra Sekhar Rout
Mr. K. Kashyap, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER
18.12.2024
Order No.
07. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
Page 1 of 3
Hence, the jurisdiction was ex facie exercised arbitrarily and the same merits interference.
Page 2 of 3
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Dec-2024 11:16:54
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Court's reduction of interim maintenance from Rs.4000 to Rs.3000 in a domestic violence case warrants interference in revision.
Chinmay Chintan Rout
Ranjita Barik @ Rout
Chandra Sekhar Rout
V. Narasingh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
