Sri Uttam Mihir Roy v. Smt. Susmita Chowdhury
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 24
Judgment
Operative part
Sri Uttam Mihir Roy Vs Smt. Susmita Chowdhury Mr. Debabrata Acharyya, Mr. Sital Samanta. … For the petitioner. Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Mr. Prabir Bhattacharya ….. For the opposite party. The Order No. 39 dated 22nd December, 2021 is under challenge in this revisional application. By the impugned order, learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Howrah allowed one application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 directing the petitioner/husband to pay Rs.90,000/- per month as alimony pendente lite. From the record dated 13.04.2022, it appears that one petition was filed by the petitioner/husband with a prayer for vacating the ex parte order passed on 22.12.2021. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find it to be justified to request the learned Judge to hear application for vacating the ex parte order dated 22.12.2021 filed by the petitioner/husband on 13.04.2022. 2 Learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Howrah is requested to hear the application filed on 13.04.2022 as expeditiously as possible subject to the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakh) within four weeks from the date. Parties are directed to make communication of this order to learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court, Howrah. With this observation and direction, the revisional application stands disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. (Bibhas Ranjan De, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 24.
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.