DEEPAK KUMAR RAUT Vs. PRIYADARSINI RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mahapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant-husband and draws attention to order dtd. 20/11/2023. He submits, his client has managed to get together ?5,00,000/-for purpose of demonstrating bona fide as directed in paragraph 5 of our said order.

(2.) Mr. Bhuyan, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-wife and submits, he disputes that the husband could only arrange ?5,00,000/-. Under Sec. 20 in Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu is bound during his lifetime to maintain, inter alia, his child. There was direction in impugned judgment to make deposit of ?12,00,000/- in name of the minor son and pay ?8,00,000/- to his client for maintenance of the son till he attains majority. The appeal has been filed to avoid compliance of the duty bound by Sec. 20.

(3.) We reproduce below paragraphs 3 to 5 from our order dated