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
18 paragraphs · 246 wordsArindam Sinha, J
Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. He submits, judgment dated 13th January, 2020, passed by Family Court,
Rourkela needs to be interfered with. It is an ex-parte judgment. Apart from his client having been ill and unable to attend Court, there was strike
going on in the Court preventing learned advocates to appear. In the circumstances, there be interference. Mr. Mohapatra submits, his client has filed
interim application for state of operation of the order.
2.  Text of order dated 25th June, 2021 is reproduced below:-
“ This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Issue notice on the question of admission to the O.Ps. by Speed Post with A.D./Registered Post
with A.D. fixing a short returnable date. Requisites be filed within three working days.
Provided the Petitioner goes on making payment of maintenance to the O.Ps. and filing proof of that before this Court, this matter shall be listed for final hearing
immediately.â€
On query from Court Mr. Mohapatra submits, the direction for payment of interim maintenance has not been fully complied with.
Adjournment is granted for petitioner to satisfy Court that the judgment proceeds on basis of records and that there is no reference to submission
made by learned advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1.
It is noted that service on opposite party no.1 has been made.
List on 25th January, 2022.
................................................