CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Sudarsan Mallick vs Sunati Mallick And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 15 May 2023 · Citation: (2023) 05 OHC CK 0218

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.R. Mohapatra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 127
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
RPFAM No. 79 Of 2023
Ask AI about this case

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

9 paragraphs · 333 words

K.R. Mohapatra, J

1.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Order dated 18th January, 2023 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani in C.R.P. No.89 of 2021 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 127 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3.

It is submitted by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties in the Lok Adalat, the Petitioner is required to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.1-Wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to his unmarried daughter-Opposite Party No. 3 respectively. But, in the meantime, the Opposite Party No.3 has got married. Thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance. As such, an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. was filed for variation of the order of maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani without considering the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. in its proper perspective dismissed the same. Hence, the RPFAM has been filed.

4.

On perusal of the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. annexed to the RPFAM as Annexure-3, it appears that no such averment has been taken by the Petitioner in the said application. In that view of the matter, Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel prays for withdrawal of RPFAM to enable the Petitioner to file appropriate application before learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani for variation of the order of maintenance in respect of Opposite Party No.3-Daughter.

5.

Accordingly, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the submission made by Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner disposes of the RPFAM as withdrawn with an observation that in the event the Petitioner files a properly constituted application for variation/annulment of maintenance in favour of Opposite Party No.3, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

6.

Certified copy of Annexure-1 shall be returned to the learned counsel for the Petitioner on substitution of attested photocopy thereof.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

…………………………………