Anjarana Banka vs A. Kuri
2023 Latest Caselaw 4442 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  RPFAM No. 300 OF 2017
                 Anjarana Banka                          ....      Petitioners
                                               Mr. Abinash Swain, Advocate
                              on behalf of Mr. Shashi Bhusan Jena, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 A. Kuri                                    ....    Opp. Party


                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                   ORDER

Order No.                         26.04.2023
            Misc. Case No.414 of 2017
            & RPFAM No. 300 OF 2017
   3.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. This is an application for condonation of delay of five hundred nineteen days in filing the RPFAM.

3. Although the RPFAM along with petition for condonation of delay was filed on 15th November, 2017, but thereafter no step has been taken by learned counsel for the Petitioner to get the matter listed. In the meantime, more than five years have already elapsed.

4. The Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the judgment dated 16th March, 2016 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam in Criminal Proceeding No.36 of 2015, whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party with effect from January, 2005 till the date of the order, i.e., 16th March, 2016. Thereafter, he has been directed to provide Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party as maintenance. The Petitioner has also been directed to

// 2 //

repay the loan of Rs.65,000/- which the Opposite Party had to incur for her maintenance.

5. In the petition for condonation of delay, the Petitioner has taken a ground that since he has not received a single pie after his retirement and was continuing under starvation, this revision petition could not be filed in time. After much difficulty, he could come to Cuttack and contact his lawyer in 13th November, 2017 and the RPFAM was filed on 15th November, 2017. There is no material on record to ascertain the veracity of the grounds taken in the petition for condonation of delay. There is also no detail about the date of retirement and the reason for not receiving the retiral dues by the Petitioner.

6. Since the inordinate delay of five hundred nineteen days in filing the RPFAM is not explained properly, I am not inclined to issue notice to the Opposite Party in the matter of limitation after a lapse of more than five years.

7. In that view of the matter, Misc. Case No.414 of 2017 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the RPFAM stands dismissed being barred by limitation.

                                            (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                                Judge