Sarfuddin Akhtar vs Nusima Mehboob Begum
2023 Latest Caselaw 917 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  RPFAM No. 20 OF 2012
                 Sarfuddin Akhtar                           ....          Petitioner
                                                                             None
                                            -versus-
                 Nusima Mehboob Begum                       ....     Opp. Party
                                                                        None

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              24.01.2023
   4.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. None appears for the parties at the time of call.

3. This RPFAM has been filed assailing the judgment dated 17th November, 2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No.64 of 2011, whereby entertaining an application under Sections 3(2) & (3)(a)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, learned Family Court passed the following order:

"ORDER The proceeding is allowed on contest. The Opp. Party is directed to pay Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees Three Lakhs) to the wife-petitioner as permanent maintenance amount within one month. He is further directed to pay Rs.82,620/- to the wife-petitioner which is equal to the Meher Fatmi within one month. The Opp. Party is further directed to return gold ornaments i.e. all neckless-20 gms., ear Jhumuka one pair 10 gm, Bala 2 pair 40 grams, Mangtika-5 gm., Finger Ring 5 Ms 15 gms. weighing about 90 grams of gold ornaments and 1/2 kg. silver ornament, gotha 400 grams, Paunji one pair-100 grams or in lieu of the same be paid Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner-wife within one month."

// 2 //

4. On perusal of the case record, it appears that after issuance of notice, no step has been taken by either of the parties to get the matter listed. It is at the instance of the Court, the matter has been listed. Thus, it appears that the parties have lost interest in pursuing the matter.

5. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed for non- prosecution.

                                         (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                             Judge