Banita Behera And Others vs Suratha Digal
2023 Latest Caselaw 3790 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 157 OF 2017
                 Banita Behera and others              ....      Petitioners
                                       Mr. Raju Kumar Satapathy, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Suratha Digal                           .... Opp. Party
                                         Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Advocate

                        CORAM:
                        JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                   ORDER

Order No.                         19.04.2023
             Misc. Case No.235 of 2017
             & RPFAM No. 157 OF 2017
   4.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 14th December, 2016 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani in C.R.P. No.13 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been rejected.

3. As there is a delay of one hundred twenty five days in filing the RPFAM, Misc. Case No.235 of 2017 has been filed for condonation of delay.

4. On perusal of the petition for condonation of delay, it appears that the Petitioner has taken a ground that Petitioner No.1 is unable to maintain herself and could not able to arrange funds to come and file the RPFAM before this Court. Hence, there is a delay in filing the petition. By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated to be sufficient grounds for condonation of delay of one hundred twenty five days in filing the RPFAM. It further appears that although the notice was directed to be issued in the limitation matter on 17th November, 2021, but thereafter no step has been

// 2 //

taken to list the matter. It further appears that the Petitioner No.1 is employed and Petitioner No.2 has attained the age of majority in the meantime. Thus, the grounds for condonation of delay raised by the Petitioners, more particularly, that Petitioner No.1 is unable to maintain herself is not correct.

5. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to condone the delay of one hundred twenty five days in filing the RPFAM.

6. Accordingly, Misc. Case No.235 of 2017 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge