Sapura Padhan vs Guru Padhan
2023 Latest Caselaw 4307 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 230 OF 2017
                 Sapura Padhan                             ....      Petitioner
                                         Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Guru Padhan                               ....     Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                   ORDER

Order No.                         25.04.2023
            Misc. Case No.326 of 2017
   3.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the RPFAM.

3. Since there is no delay in filing the RPFAM, as pointed out by the S.R., no order is required to be passed in this Misc. Case.

4. Accordingly, the Misc. Case is disposed of.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge RPFAM No. 230 OF 2017

4. 1. Judgment dated 22nd July, 2017 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.228-787 of 2000-16 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to the Petitioner from the date of the order.

// 2 //

2. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner that law is well settled that ordinarily the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be granted from the date of filing of the petition. If the Court feels that the maintenance should be awarded with effect from different date, reason to that effect has to be assigned. In the instant case, the Petitioner is a rustic villager and has no knowledge of intricacies of law. Due to poverty, she could not engage any lawyer. Hence, she could not prosecute the case properly. After the matter was transferred to the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh, an amicus curiae was engaged and the matter was disposed of. Hence, delay in disposal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should not be attributed to the Petitioner. This aspect was lost sight of by learned Judge, Family Court while adjudicating the petition. Hence, he prays for modification of the impugned order under Annexure-3 and to direct Opposite Party to pay the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with effect from the date of filing of the application.

3. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that although the RPFAM was filed on 6th September, 2017, but no step is taken till today to get the matter listed. After going through the impugned order under Annexure-3, this Court finds that learned Judge, Family Court has assigned good reason for not awarding maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C, which was filed in the year, 2000. Learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned order under Annexure-3 has categorically observed that after taking step for few years, the Petitioner went on filing time petitions when the case was ready

// 3 //

for hearing. Finally on 16th August, 2013 no step was taken from either side and it was adjourned to different dates. Finally, after establishment of learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh, the case record was transferred to the said Court. Upon receipt of the case record, learned Judge, Family Court issued notice to the Parties. Thereafter, the Petitioner appeared and engaged an amicus curiae. Within three to four months thereafter the case was finalized. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that learned Judge, Family Court has committed no error in awarding the maintenance with effect from the date of the order.

4. In view of the discussion made above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-3.

5. Accordingly, the RPFAM is dismissed.

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

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

ms