Jadumani Patra vs Jamuna Patra
2023 Latest Caselaw 4575 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  RPFAM No. 344 of 2017
                 Jadumani Patra                           ....      Petitioner
                                         Mr. Asit Kumar Choudhury, Advocate
                                            -versus-
                 Jamuna Patra                             ....     Opp. Party

                            CORAM:
                           JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No. 27.04.2023

Misc. Case No.100 of 2018 & RPFAM No. 344 of 2017

2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. The Misc. Case has been filed for condonation of delay of 31 days in filing the RPFAM.

3. This RPFAM has been filed assailing the Judgment and Order dated 19th August, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.82-819 of 2012-16 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh, whereby allowing an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., learned Family Court directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party at an enhanced rate from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 25th April, 2012.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel that the Petitioner during the relevant period was serving as a Constable under the Custom and Excise Department and posted at Bhubaneswar. He did not have the knowledge of intricacies of law. At the relevant time, he was deployed at Biju Pattnaik Airport, Bhubaneswar

// 2 //

and was preoccupied with his assignments. Thus, he could not take any step to file RPFAM within the statutory period.

4.1 There is no averment in the petition for condonation of delay about the details of his assignment at Biju Pattnaik Airport and when he was relieved from his duty. Moreover, the same cannot be the ground to condone of delay in filing the RPFAM, when the Petitioner had contested the case before learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh. It also appears that learned JMFC, Bargarh vide order dated 9th July, 2003, in CMC No.192 of 1999 directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as maintenance to the Opposite Party. The application under Section 127 Cr.P.C was filed in the year 2012, i.e., nine years after. Admittedly, salary of the Petitioner during the relevant period was Rs.25,000/- per month. As such, direction of learned Judge, Family Court to pay maintenance at the enhanced rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party does not appear to be unreasonable.

5. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to issue notice on limitation matter more particularly after lapse of more than five years. In that view of the matter, Misc. Case for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequentially, the RPFAM is dismissed being barred by limitation.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

// 3 //

s.s.satapathy