Rajalaxmi Mohapatra And Others vs Jitendra Behari Mohapatra
2023 Latest Caselaw 596 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                RPFAM No. 52 OF 2011
                 Rajalaxmi Mohapatra and others          ....      Petitioners
                                                   Mr. M.R. Nayak, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Jitendra Behari Mohapatra                 ....    Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            18.01.2023
   3.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioners in this RPFAM seek to assail the ex parte judgment dated 8th April, 2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Cr.P. No.93 of 2009, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from the date of application i.e. 13th February, 2009.

3. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that although the RPFAM was filed since 20th May, 2011, no step has yet been taken for more than eleven years to get the matter listed.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that income of the Opposite Party at the relevant time was Rs.46,000/- per month. But learned Family Court without considering the same passed a meager amount of maintenance to the Petitioners, as aforesaid.

5. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioners have filed salary particulars of the Opposite Party for the month of June, 2010, which discloses that his salary for the said month

// 2 //

was Rs.46,051.36/- and his net salary was Rs.33,657.36/- after deduction of Rs.12,494.00/-. Considering the same, learned Judge, Family Court passed the impugned order. It further appears that both Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have attained their majority in the meantime. Hence, it would not be proper for the Court to issue notice to the Opposite Party after a lapse of eleven years that to because of the latches of the Petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is further made clear that this order shall not stand as a bar for the Petitioners to claim maintenance at an enhanced rate in accordance with law, if they are otherwise entitled to.

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

                                         (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                             Judge