Sarita Satpathy @ Tripathy v. Ananta Charan Tripathy
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
warrant in future, the writ appeal is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Clarifying that this is not a one-time issue for all times to come and that the amount can always be revised if the circumstances so warrant in future, the writ appeal is disposed of. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge M. Panda (G. Satapathy)
Judgment
ORDER 24.03.2023 Order No.
The impugned order was obviously passed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz 2008(II) OLR (FB) 725 which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Mahammed Saud v. Dr. (Maj) Shaikh Mahfooz (2010) 13 SCC 517, the present writ appeal is not maintainable.
Nevertheless, even on merits, the Court finds that the learned Single Judge after taking into account all the relevant factors reduced the monthly maintenance amount from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.
Operative part
Clarifying that this is not a one-time issue for all times to come and that the amount can always be revised if the circumstances so warrant in future, the writ appeal is disposed of. Chief Justice (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Judge M. Panda (G. Satapathy)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: warrant in future, the writ appeal is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.