SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SANJU PANDA, B.R.SARANGI
Nalini Samal – Appellant
Versus
Brundaban Samal – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants in MATA No. 70 of 2010:R. K. Swain, B. Nayak, B. Mohanty, A. K. Nandy. A.K. Sethi, N. Panda-L, M. K. Panda and S. Mazumdar, Advocates.
For the Respondents in MATA No. 70 of 2010:K. Patnaik, Md. H. Khan. T. Ram, A.K. Bhanja, S. K. Sethi. R. K. Mohanty. D. Mohanty, S. Mohanty, A. Mohanty, N. Mohanty. D. Varadwaj and S. Mohanty, Advocates
For the Appellants in MATA No. 73 of 2010:S. Mohanty. B. Biswal, C. Sethy, S. C. Mohanty. R. K. Mohanty. D. Mohanty, S. Mohanty. A. Mohanty, N; Mohanty and D. Varadwaj, Advocates.
For the Respondents in MATA No. 73 of 2010:N. Panda-L. N. K. Panda and Miss. S. Mazumdar. Advocates.
For the Respondents in MATA No. 93 of 2010:R. K. Swain. B. Nayak..B. Mohanty, N. Panda-I, M. K. Panda and S. Mazumdar, Advocates.
For the Appellants in MATA No. 93 of 2010:K. N. Patnaik, S. K. Mishra, S. K. Rout. J. Pradhan, D. Mohanty, S. Mohanty. D. Varadwaj, S. Mohanty. A. Mohanty and N. Mohanty, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Sanju Panda, J.—M.A.T.A. No. 70 of 2010 has been filed by the wife and minor daughter challenging the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court. Cuttack in C.P. No. 463 of 2003, dismissing the- application filed by them under sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. .

2. M.A.T.A. No. 73 of 2010 has been filed by the husband challenging the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 362 of 2005 filed by the minor son under Section 125, Cr. P.C. granting maintenance to him.

3. M.A.T.A. No. 93 of 2010 has been filed by the wife challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in C.P. No. 100 of 2005 filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce on the plea of adultery.

4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack while disposing of the aforesaid three proceedings by common judgment allowed C.P. No. 100 of 2005 on contest against the wife and ex parte against one Tapan Swain, against whom the plea of adultery has been taken by the husband. While granting decree of divorce, the Court below directed to pay Rs.2,00,000 as

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top