Pratima Mohanty @ Pati And Another vs Aswini Kumar Biswal @ Nilu
2023 Latest Caselaw 1794 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  RPFAM No. 113 OF 2014
                 Pratima Mohanty @ Pati and another     ....      Petitioners
                                        Mr. Binod Madhab Dutta, Advocate
                              on behalf of Mr. Sunil Ratan Dutta, Advocate

                                            -versus-
                 Aswini Kumar Biswal @ Nilu              ....    Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              27.02.2023
   3.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 30th January, 2014 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in CRP No.202 of 2004 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby refusing maintenance to Petitioner No.1, the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.250/- per month to Petitioner No.2 from the date of application and Rs.750/- per month from the date of the order till he attains the age of majority.

3. Mr. Binod Madhab Dutta, learned counsel submits that Mr. Sunil Ratan Dutta, learned counsel for the Petitioners is hospitalized at AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and prays for an adjournment in the matter.

4. From the record, it appears that apart from Mr. Dutta, learned counsel, there are other counsels appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Further it appears that although pursuant to the order dated 3rd December, 2014, notice was directed to be issued,

// 2 //

no requisites for issuance of notice to the Opposite Party has been filed till date.

5. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer made by Mr. B.M. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.R. Dutta, learned counsel for the Petitioners.

6. On perusal of the record, it further appears that Petitioner No.2, who is the son of the Opposite Party, has already attained the age of majority. Hence, the matter has already become infructuous.

7. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed as infructuous.

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge