Appellant husband filed an appeal against a maintenance order but conceded the dispute was resolved privately. The High Court dismissed the appeal after noting the appellant did not wish to prosecute.
The appeal was 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 MATA No.169 of 2023
Kshitish Parida
Appellant
Mr. S. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
Suhasini Parida
Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
Order No.
ORDER 26.02.2024
“Mr. Samal, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, by inadvertent error, interlocutory order of interim maintenance was impugned in the appeal.
In the circumstances, his client wants to petition for judicial review against the order. 2. He prays for liberty to file
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
application to change the nomenclature. The liberty is granted for application to be made before the department.”
Now appellant does not want to prosecute or take any step in the matter. 3. The appeal is dismissed.
( Arindam Sinha ) Judge
Prasant
( M. S. Sahoo ) Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 26-Feb-2024 19:01:11
Page 2 of 2
Kshitish Parida
Suhasini Parida
Arindam Sinha
M. S. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
