Purna Chandra Behera vs Geetanjali Behera And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 633 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                RPFAM No. 189 OF 2015
                 Purna Chandra Behera                   ....       Petitioner
                                      Ms. Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate
                                 on behalf of Mr. B. P. Tripathy, Advocate
                                       -versus-
                 Geetanjali Behera and another           ....    Opp. Parties


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            19.01.2023
   3.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 24th August, 2015 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in Criminal Proceeding No.261 of 2013 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 with effect from the date of filing of the application i.e. from 15th November, 2013.

3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party No.1 left the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause. He also submits that the allegation of extra marital relationship of the Petitioner was unfounded and disbelieved by learned Family Court. The Petitioner was getting a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- per month at the relevant time working in a color lab. Learned Family Court on assessment of evidence, has come to a categorical conclusion that neither the Petitioner nor the Opposite Party No.1 prove their plea by

// 2 //

sufficient evidence. Hence, the Petitioner should not have been burdened with payment of maintenance to the Opposite Parties. It is his submission that in the meantime, the Opposite Party No.2 has attained the age of majority and is not entitled to any maintenance. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1.

4. On perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the RPFAM was filed on 9th November, 2015. The same was listed on 14th September, 2016, on which date, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed for an adjournment to take instruction in the matter. In the meantime, more than seven years have already elapsed from the date of filing of the RPFAM and no endeavour was made to list the matter for issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties. It is at the instance of the Court the RPFAM is listed.

5. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the Opposite Parties at such a belated stage to test the legality and propriety of the impugned order under Annexure-

1. It is, however, observed that the Petitioner is at liberty to seek for variation of the order of maintenance to the Opposite Party No.2 before learned Family Court, as he has attained the age of majority in the meantime.

6. With the aforesaid observation, this Court without inferring with the impugned order under Annexure-1 disposes of the RPFAM.

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

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge