AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 265 wordsArindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mallick, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner husband and submits, his client has challenged order dated 7th January, 2019 made by the Family Court staying the civil proceeding for divorce instituted by his client. He submits, there is no procedure known in law for stay of the proceedings for execution of order for payment of interim maintenance. He submits, six execution cases have been dropped on execution, satisfaction and discharge.
Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party wife and submits, in excess of Rs.3,79,000/- remains to be paid by petitioner. The order for stay of proceeding to enforce payment is a good order. He relies on view expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Gouridevi Panda v. Kishore Chandra Panda reported in 1988 (I) OLR-66.
Petitioner submits, six execution cases have been dropped and he is willing to pay in compliance with the order for payment of interim maintenance. He will be at liberty to approach the Family Court to demonstrate that the order has been complied with. On satisfaction of compliance, obtained by the Family Court, said Court will vacate the order of stay and proceed to hear and dispose of the civil proceeding as expeditiously as possible. In event the Family Court is satisfied that the order for payment of interim maintenance stands complied with, it is requested to make every effort to have the adjudication of the civil proceeding concluded within six months from date of vacating the stay order.
The writ petition is disposed of.
..................................