Subhasis Pany vs Itishree Panda @ Pani And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2051 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 128 of 2016
                 Subhasis Pany                           ....       Petitioner
                                                   Mr.S.Mohapatra, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Itishree Panda @ Pani and another          ....    Opp. Parties

                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             10.03.2023
 5.         1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 6th May, 2016 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in Cr.P No.145 of 2015 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of the order.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner since no interim order has been passed, the Petitioner is going on paying the maintenance to the Opposite Parties regularly as directed by learned Family Court till date. It is his submission that in the meantime marriage between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and the Opposite Party No.1 has been granted permanent alimony of Rs.10.00 lakh. Both the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 have challenged the said decree of divorce by filing separate appeals, i.e., MATA No.50 of 2018 (by Opposite Party No.1) and MATA No.59 of 2018 (by the present Petitioner). The said Appeals are pending for adjudication before this Court. In that view of the matter, learned counsel for

// 2 //

the Petitioner submits that Opposite Party No.1 is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

4. None appears for the Opposite Parties although they are represented through learned counsel.

5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court feels that since the Petitioner is stated to be paying maintenance to the Opposite Parties regularly till date and in the meantime, a decree of divorce has been passed granting permanent alimony to the Opposite Party No.1, he may approach learned Family Court, Dhenkanal for variation of the orders passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., if he is so advised.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the RPFAM is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy