Orissa High Court
Ranjan Kumar Dikshit vs Aradhana Dash on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MATA No.13 of 2022
Ranjan Kumar Dikshit ......... Appellant
Mr. R.N. Singh, Adv.
-Versus-
Aradhana Dash .......... Respondent
Ms. P. Nayak, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
18.11.2022
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and also Ms. P. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
3. By means of this appeal, the Judgment dated 22.12.2021
delivered in Civil Proceeding No.603/2017 by the Judge, Family
Court, Balasore has been challenged.
4. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant has taken us
to the Judgment and stated that since he could not pay the arrear
maintenance within the stipulated time, his defence had been struck
down. The relevant part of the Judgment for purpose of reference is
extracted hereunder:
"Striking off the defence of the respondent is an
order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if
the courts find default to be willful and
contumacious, particularly to a dependent
unemployed wife and minor children. Now it is
left for a finding if the petitioner-husband has
willfully defaulted to comply the order of this
court dt.30.07.2019 by non-payment of the
interim maintenance to his wife and minor child.
As stated earlier the order of interim maintenance
was passed on 30.07.2019 by directing the
petitioner to pay the interim maintenance amount
from 18.05.2018. More than three years and seven
months have elapsed in the meanwhile. Filling of
two execution applications re-enforces the truth of
the imputations of the respondent-wife. Therefore,
judging the above conduct of the petitioner-
husband, it is safely concluded that he has
willfully defaulted to pay the interim maintenance
amount. As such, the above act of omission and
non-compliance of order of this Court clearly
amounts to contumacious. Thus, the petition
dt.15.12.2021 deserves merit for consideration
and accordingly, it is allowed. The petition
dt.01.11.2017 of the petitioner-husband stands
dismissed by striking off the same in the light of
the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted
above."
5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel on a query of this Bench has
agreed that he will pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs against the arrear
maintenance. In view of the said statement made by the learned
counsel for the appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the said
Judgment dated 22.12.2021 and accordingly, the said Judgment is set
aside. 'The Judge', Family Court, Balasore is directed to proceed with
the Civil Proceeding No.603 of 2017 from the stage of framing of
issues/conciliation, subject to payment of Rs.2 lakhs to the respondent
within a period of one month from today.
6. Ms. Nayak, learned counsel has given us an account how the
appellant was resolving the order of maintenance. Consequently, the
respondent had instituted two execution proceedings for realizing the
due sum from the appellant.
7. Be that as it may, it is made absolutely clear if the said
amount as directed to be paid by the appellant within one month is not
paid within the said time frame, this order will lose all its force and
the Judgment dated 22.12.2021 delivered in Civil Proceeding No.603
of 2017 by the Judge, Family Court, Balasore will be restituted
without reference to this court and the appellant shall suffer the
consequential dismissal of the suit for his own default.
8. In terms of the said condition, this appeal stands allowed.
9. A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties
free of cost.
10. The respondent is directed to submit a copy of this order to
the Judge, Family Court, Balasore.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Rati Ranjan Judge
