Salakhu Murmu @ Salkhu Murmu vs Sushila Murmu
2023 Latest Caselaw 1724 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 131 OF 2014
                 Salakhu Murmu @ Salkhu Murmu        ....       Petitioner
                                      Mr. Prafulla Kumar Rath, Advocate

                                          -versus-
                 Sushila Murmu                            ....     Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            23.02.2023
   7.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 2nd September, 2014 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in I.A. No.05 of 2013 (arising out of Crl. Proceeding No.15 of 2012) is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby an application filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed and thereby learned Judge, Family Court refused to set aside the ex parte judgment dated 22nd July, 2013 passed in Criminal Proceeding No.15 of 2012 directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of application, i.e., from 10th February, 2013.

3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner had entered appearance, filed show cause and took part in conciliation proceeding, but could not take part in hearing of the case, for which the ex parte judgment was passed. He submits that dismissing the petition under Section 5 of the Act filed along with petition under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. by

// 2 //

disbelieving the plea of the Petitioner to the effect that he was ignorant about the proceeding of the case. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela to adjudicate the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

4. In course of hearing, Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner produces photocopy copy of the ex parte judgment passed in Criminal Proceeding No.15 of 2012, from which it appears that maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the Petitioner to the Opposite Party. The Petitioner at the relevant period was working as Panchayat Secretary (VLW) . Further the relationship between the parties is also not disputed. In that view of the matter, the quantum of maintenance does not appear to be unreasonable.

5. Thus, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merit of the impugned order, more particularly, when the Opposite Party being the destitute wife of the Petitioner, she is entitled to be maintained by her husband (the Petitioner).

6. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

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

                                         (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                             Judge