Petitioner challenged an order directing interim maintenance payment. Court found the underlying criminal proceeding was disposed of, rendering the writ petition infructuous and vacated an interim order.
Writ petition disposed of as infructuous; interim order dated 17.09.2009 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 20-Mar-2024 19:07:45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.13198 OF 2009 Nirmala Kumar Mishra ….
…. Petitioner
Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Sobharani Rout
…. Opp. Party
Mr. Surendra Kumar Rout, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Kshirod Kumar Rout, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Order No.
ORDER 19.03.2024
counsel for the Opposite Party does not have any objection to the same.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Rojalin
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an interim maintenance order remains maintainable after the underlying criminal proceedings become disposed.
Nirmala Kumar Mishra
Sobharani Rout
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
