Ashalata Rath And Another vs Rabindranath Rath
2023 Latest Caselaw 1560 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 40 OF 2014
                 Ashalata Rath and another               ....      Petitioners
                                              Mr. Amlan Mohanty, Advocate
                                  on behalf of Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Rabindranath Rath                        ....    Opp. Party
                                                                       None

                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             20.02.2023
   7.       1.       This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 15th July, 2003 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No.78 of 2000 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby an application filed by the Petitioners under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been dismissed.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that as Petitioner No.1 could not prove her marriage with the Opposite Party, learned Judge, Family Court refused to grant her maintenance. Further, after closure of evidence, the Petitioner No.1 prayed for adjournment to file documents in support of her case, which was also refused. He further submits that at the time of argument, learned counsel for the Petitioners was absent and petition for adjournment was filed. Without entertaining the same, learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack passed the impugned order. Hence, the same is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The matter may be remitted back to learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for fresh adjudication granting leave to the Petitioners to adduce further evidence.

// 2 //

4. None appears on behalf of the Opposite Party, although he is represented through his learned counsel.

5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the record, it appears that no material, whatsoever, was produced before learned Judge, Family Court to establish that Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the Opposite Party. It further appears that after closure of evidence, the Petitioners took several adjournments and thereafter filed two documents i.e. school certificate and conduct certificate of Petitioner No.2 to prove that Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the Opposite Party and Petitioner No.2 was born out of their wedlock. Xerox copies of those documents were marked as Exts.1 and 2 with objection. Learned Judge, Family Court scrutinizing those materials found that the name of the father of Petitioner No.2 is mentioned as 'Rabindra Kumar Rath' in those documents. But the Opposite Party name is Rabindranath Rath. There is also no material on record to show that Rabindra Kumar Rath and Rabindranath Rath are one of the same person. Further no material was adduced by the Petitioners to show that there was a relationship of husband and wife between Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party.

6. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack has committed no error in dismissing the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

7. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

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

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge