Sri Deepak Kumar Raut vs Smt. Priyadarsini Raut
2023 Latest Caselaw 15068 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                MATA No.33 of 2020
             Sri Deepak Kumar Raut        .........                  Appellant

                                  Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate

                                      -Versus-

             Smt. Priyadarsini Raut               .........         Respondent

                                        Mr. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Advocate

                  CORAM:
                               JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                               JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

                                            ORDER

20.11.2023 Order No.

07. 1. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-

husband and submits, his client is aggrieved by judgment dated 29th

November, 2019 made by the family Court to extent that though there was

confirmation of his client's right to visit the child, no direction was made

in the judgment. Furthermore, quantum of maintenance directed is also

beyond reach of his client to pay. He submits, meanwhile his client is

paying Rs.2,500/- per month as maintenance for the son as directed by

interim order passed in the appeal.

2. Mr. Bhuyan, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife.

On query from Court he submits, his client has not preferred appeal from

impugned judgment.

3. On query made to Mr. Mohapatra regarding compliance with the

direction for payment of maintenance for the son by deposit or otherwise,

he seeks adjournment. He submits further, respondent-wife is working in a

private school and has remarried.

4. We have noticed finding in impugned judgment that appellant-

husband is jobless and dependent on his parents. Mr. Bhuyan submits,

there is otherwise admission in the memo of appeal. Considering that his

client has not preferred appeal/cross objection against impugned judgment,

we are not required to consider the appeal memo as additional evidence.

5. Adjournment is granted for appellant to demonstrate bonafide

regarding compliance with the direction made in impugned judgment. We

note that in addition to the husband having right to know his son, the son

also must not be deprived of knowing his father.

6. List on 11th December, 2023.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASIS MOHANTY Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Nov-2023 17:24:19