Aparna Jena vs Prasana Kumar Jena
2023 Latest Caselaw 549 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 1 OF 2003
                 Aparna Jena                                ....       Petitioner
                                                      Mr. A.K. Baral, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Prasana Kumar Jena                         ....    Opp. Party
                                                                   None

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             17.01.2023
   7.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 16th December, 2022 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No.547 of 1999 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.400/- per month to the Petitioner from the date of the order.

3. Mr. Baral, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is not aggrieved by the quantum of maintenance. But, the maintenance should have been paid from the date of the application instead of the date of order. He also relied upon the case law in Rajnesh -v- Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 and submits that ordinarily the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of the application. If the Court is of the opinion that, it should be awarded from the date of the order, reason to that effect should have been recorded. In the instant case, learned Judge, Family Court without assigning any reason, awarded maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of

// 2 //

the order. He, therefore, prays for modification of the impugned order and to pay maintenance from the date of the application.

4. Although, the Opposite Party is represented by learned counsel, none appears at the time of hearing.

5. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the Petitioner did not take any step to get the matter listed after 30th October, 2003. It further appears that the matter was also listed before the Lok Adalat, but none of the parties to the RPFAM cooperated.

6. Since the impugned order was passed more than twenty years back, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order delving into the merit of the case.

7. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

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

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge