Abhimanyu Nayak vs Padmavati Nayak
2023 Latest Caselaw 2219 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 21 of 2016
                 Abhimanyu Nayak                         ....      Petitioner
                                           Mr. Dayanidhi Mohanty, Advocate

                                           -versus-
                 Padmavati Nayak                         ....      Opp. Party
                                             Ms. Manasi Mohapatra, Advocate

                           CORAM:
                          JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             17.03.2023

 9.         1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 30th September, 2015 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Cr.P No.164 of 2011 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,500/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of application.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner by filing a memo submits that he has no instruction in the matter.

4. Ms. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that the Petitioner has neither complied the interim order dated 18th November, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.32 of 2016 nor the interim order dated 16th December, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.330 of 2016. Learned counsel for the Petitioner objects to the above submission.

5. However, in view of the memo filed, the RPFAM is dismissed for non-prosecution.

// 2 //

6. Interim order dated 18th November, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.32 of 2016 and the interim order dated 16th December, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.330 of 2016 stand vacated. Opposite Party is at liberty to take step for realization of arrear maintenance in accordance with law.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

s.s.satapathy