Babu Patro @ Baba Rao Patro @ vs Suryakanti Patro And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10069 Ori

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 29-Aug-2023 19:36:30




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                             RPFAM NO. 227 OF 2016
                              Babu Patro @ Baba Rao Patro @     ....                  Petitioner
                              B.Baba Rao Patro
                                                             Mr. Mohammed Faradish, Advocate
                                                          on behalf of Mr. M.M.Swain, Advocate

                                                       -versus-
                              Suryakanti Patro and others                ....       Opp. Parties
                                         CORAM:
                                         JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                                 ORDER

         Order No.                              25.08.2023
            8.           1.        This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 12th July, 2016 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in Criminal Proceeding No.110 of 2014 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to each of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3.

3. In course of hearing, Mr. Faradish, learned counsel being authorized by learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Opposite Party No.2, namely, Bishnu Patro was aged about 20 years. Thus, she is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 (1) (b) and (c) of Cr.P.C. Further, in the meantime, Opposite Party No.3, namely, Sandhyarani Patro has also attained the age of majority. Thus, she is also not entitled to maintenance. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhilasha Vs. Prakash and others, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 99.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed // 2 // Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK Date: 29-Aug-2023 19:36:30

4. Although Opposite Parties are represented through learned counsel but none appears on their behalf at the time of call.

5. Since Opposite Party No.2 had attained the age of majority at the time of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to any maintenance. Thus, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the Opposite Party No.2 is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. So far as Opposite Party No.3 is concerned, the Petitioner has liberty to file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for variation of order of maintenance in her favour from the date of attaining age of majority. In that event, learned Judge, Family Court shall do well to consider the same in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid observation and modification in the impugned order, the RPFAM is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

  s.s.satapathy                                             (K.R. Mohapatra)
                                                                  Judge