Smt. Sujata Panda Vs. Sri Jayadev Panda - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in..........the order for enhancement of maintenance under section 25, if that is not considered by the judge, family court, cuttack. learned counsel for the respondent states that it is upto the choice of the appellant to make claim under section 25, but no leave of this court is necessary at this stage in the manner the appellant has prayed for.3. considering the aforesaid submission, we disposed of this mata without interfering with the impugned order passed in civil proceeding no.130 of 1998 of the judge, family court, cuttack. however, we make it clear that we have not examined the merit of the case so also the merit of the findings recorded by the learned judge, family court in the impugned judgment since the appellant wants to invoke the jurisdiction under section 25 of the hindu.....

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard further argument from both the parties.

2. The appellant wife states that because of the changed circumstances and existence of proof that she is entitled to more maintenance, she would approach the appropriate forum under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and therefore, she may not press this appeal at this stage and leave may be granted to agitate the same as against the order for enhancement of maintenance under Section 25, if that is not considered by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. Learned counsel for the respondent states that it is upto the choice of the appellant to make claim under Section 25, but no leave of this Court is necessary at this stage in the manner the appellant has prayed for.

3. Considering the aforesaid submission, we disposed of this MATA without interfering with the impugned order passed in Civil Proceeding No.130 of 1998 of the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack. However, we make it clear that we have not examined the merit of the case so also the merit of the findings recorded by the learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned judgment since the appellant wants to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. On filing of such application, the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack may consider the same strictly in accordance with law. The MATA is accordingly disposed of.

4. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs, so far as this litigation is concerned.