Dr. Sunil Kumar Kar vs Subhra Nibedita And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 6160 Ori

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Date: 16-May-2023 19:29:08
                                                               RPFAM No. 56 OF 2018
                                               Dr. Sunil Kumar Kar                ....                Petitioner
                                                                                                         None
                                                                       -versus-
                                               Subhra Nibedita and another            .... Opp. Parties
                                                                             Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate

                                                    CORAM:
                                                    JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                                                     ORDER

                     Order No.                                      16.05.2023
                           9.             1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Ms. Debadipta Sahoo, learned counsel by filing a memo submits that appearance of Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel and his associates for the Petitioner may be ignored.

3. In view of the memo filed, appearance of Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel and his associates is ignored.

4. None appears for the Petitioner at the time of call.

5. Judgment dated 19th January, 2018 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in Cr.P. No.32 of 2017 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 18th March, 2017.

6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that there has been a settlement between the parties.

7. Since none appears for the Petitioner and in view of the submission made by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, this RPFAM is disposed of as infructuous.

                                                                            (K.R. Mohapatra)
             ms                                                                   Judge