Orissa High Court
Tabruk Khan vs Ruksana Bibi on 1 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.172 OF 2016
Tabruk Khan ..... Petitioner
Mr. Arun Kumar Budhia, Advocate
-versus-
Ruksana Bibi .... Opp. Party
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjdeo, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 01.08.2022
4. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail order dated 30th
June, 2016 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family
Court, Khordha in Criminal Petition No.109 of 2013, whereby
an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite
Party is allowed directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party towards
maintenance from the date of application, i.e., 12th April, 2013.
3. Mr. Budhia, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to
orders dated 10th June, 2016 and 20th June, 2016 passed in
Criminal Proceeding No.109 of 2013, which are as follows:-
"Order dated 10.6.2016
Petitioner is present O.P. is absent. One time
petition is filed on behalf of O.P. without sign of O.P.
Hence it is not maintainable. Put up on 20.6.2016 for
appearance of O.P. is last chance. Failing which the O.P. 1
will be set ex parte.
Order dated 20.6.2016
// 2 //
Petitioner is present. The Judgment is ready in
separate sheet and pronounced in the open court. The
petition for maintenance u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. is allowed in part
on contest against the Opp. party without cost. The Opp.
party has to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to
the petitioner from the date of the application i.e.
12.4.2013. The maintenance amount is to be paid in the
first week of each successive month starting from the month
of July, 2016. The Opp. Party will pay the 1 year
maintenance amount in four consecutive equal monthly
instalments along with the current maintenance in case, the
Opp. Party fails to pay the current as well as arrear
maintenance amount as directed above, the petitioner is at
liberty to recover the same through the court."
3.1 It is his submission that vide order dated 10th June, 2016,
learned Judge, Family Court posted the matter to 20th June,
2016 providing last opportunity to the present Petitioner to
appear. However, order dated 20th June, 2016 clearly disclosed
that the judgment was made ready on that date and was
pronounced only on 30th June, 2016. When the Petitioner was
given last opportunity to appear on 20th June, 2016, learned
Judge, Family Court could not have made the judgment ready
on that date. He, therefore, submits that the entire proceeding in
C.P. No.109 of 2013 is vitiated. As such, he prays for setting
aside the impugned order under Annexure-1 and remit the
matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Khordha for
fresh adjudication giving opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned.
4. Mr. Bhanjdeo, learned counsel for the Opposite Party
submits that the Petitioner was thoroughly negligent in
contesting the case before learned Judge, Family Court,
Khordha for which he was given last chance to appear on 20th
June, 2016. Due to non-cooperation of the present Petitioner,
// 3 //
the impugned order has been passed. It is his submission that
the Petitioner has not paid a single pie to the Opposite Party till
date. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. He
submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Even if
the Petitioner is given opportunity of hearing he cannot
improve upon his case. Since the impugned order is supported
by reasons the same warrants no interference.
5. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned
counsel for the parties and on perusal of orders dated 10th June,
2016 and 20th June, 2016, it appears that although the present
Petitioner (Opposite Party before learned Judge, Family Court)
was given last opportunity to appear on 20th June, 2016, but the
judgment was ready on that date and was only pronounced on
30th June, 2016. Looking at the irregularities in the proceeding,
this Court while issuing notice on 31st August, 2016 directed
stay of impugned order under Annexure-1 till the next date,
which continued to be in force till date.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of record, it is clear that the procedure adopted by
learned Judge, Family Court, Khordha in disposing of the CP
No.109 of 2013 is unknown to law. Accordingly, the impugned
order under Annexure-1 is set aside and the matter is remitted
back to learned Judge, Family Court, Khordha for fresh
adjudication giving opportunity to the Petitioner to file show
cause and contest the proceeding.
6.1 In order to avoid further delay parties are directed to
appear before learned Judge, Family Court, Khordha on 16th
// 4 //
August, 2022 along with certified copy of this order to receive
further instruction in the matter.
7. The RPFAM is disposed of with observation and
direction, as aforesaid.
8. Interim order dated 31st August, 2016 passed in Misc.
Case No.245 of 2016 stands vacated.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
