SMT SOMASRI MAITY ALIAS PAYRA vs KRITISUNDAR PAYRA — 745/2024
Case under Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1),(ia),(ib). Disposed: Uncontested--DECREED IN EXPARTE on 17th April 2026.
Matrimonial Suit
CNR: WBEM090021042024
Filing Number
302272/2024
Filing Date
20-08-2024
Registration No
745/2024
Registration Date
20-08-2024
Court
Additional District Judge, Contai, Purba Medinipur
Judge
1-ADJ I
Decision Date
17th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--DECREED IN EXPARTE
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SMT SOMASRI MAITY ALIAS PAYRA
Adv. ANIMA KHATUA
Respondent(s)
KRITISUNDAR PAYRA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADJ I
Disposed
Exparte Hearing
Exparte Hearing
Argument / Further Argument
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Exparte Hearing |
| 20-02-2026 | Exparte Hearing |
| 10-02-2026 | Argument / Further Argument |
| 22-12-2025 | Appearance |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case 745/2024 Summary The Additional District Judge at Contai granted a decree of divorce to petitioner Smt. Somasri Maity against respondent Kritisundar Payra on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner testified that after their 2013 marriage, the respondent and his family demanded Rs. 50,000 as additional dowry, subjected her to physical and mental torture, and repeatedly drove her from the matrimonial home. The respondent did not contest the suit, and his unchallenged absence supported the petitioner's claims of continuous desertion exceeding two years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case 745/2024 Summary The Additional District Judge at Contai granted a decree of divorce to petitioner Smt. Somasri Maity against respondent Kritisundar Payra on grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner testified that after their 2013 marriage, the respondent and his family demanded Rs. 50,000 as additional dowry, subjected her to physical and mental torture, and repeatedly drove her from the matrimonial home. The respondent did not contest the suit, and his unchallenged absence supported the petitioner's claims of continuous desertion exceeding two years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts