ATINDRA DEY SARKAR DEBASIS KAR vs SUSHMITA DEY SARKAR (SAHA) — CO/1292/2026

Case under Hindu Marriage Act Section NA. Next hearing: 08th May 2026.

CNR: WBCHCA0172592026

Next Hearing

08th May 2026

Filing Number

CO/1299/2026

Filing Date

09-04-2026

Registration No

CO/1292/2026

Registration Date

09-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Coram

HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )

Sub-Category

Matrimonial Disputes ( 34 )

Judicial Branch

RULE SECTION

Acts & Sections

Hindu Marriage Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

ATINDRA DEY SARKAR DEBASIS KAR

Respondent(s)

SUSHMITA DEY SARKAR (SAHA)

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

16-04-2026

NEW MOTION

08-05-2026

NEW MOTION

07-05-2026

NEW MOTION

06-05-2026

NEW MOTION

05-05-2026

NEW MOTION

Orders

08-05-2026
HON'BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI

Case CO/1292/2026 Summary: The High Court at Calcutta admitted a civil revision petition by Atindra Dey Sarkar challenging a February 20, 2026 order from the Fast Track Court at Ranaghat. The lower court had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 8,000/month maintenance to the respondent and Rs. 4,000/month for the child (totaling Rs. 12,000/month) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, plus Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs. The petition was adjourned; the respondent must be served notice, with the matter to be heard immediately after Summer Vacation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case CO/1292/2026 Summary: The High Court at Calcutta admitted a civil revision petition by Atindra Dey Sarkar challenging a February 20, 2026 order from the Fast Track Court at Ranaghat. The lower court had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 8,000/month maintenance to the respondent and Rs. 4,000/month for the child (totaling Rs. 12,000/month) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, plus Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs. The petition was adjourned; the respondent must be served notice, with the matter to be heard immediately after Summer Vacation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case