Ajay Kumar Sahoo @ Ajay vs Moti Sahoo And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 907 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 23 OF 2012
                 Ajay Kumar Sahoo @ Ajay                 ....       Petitioner
                                                Ms. Ayushi Mehta, Advocate
                                  on behalf of Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Moti Sahoo and another                  .... Opp. Parties
                                        Mr. Rajib Bihari Mishra, Advocate
                             on behalf of Mr. Bikram Ch. Ghadei, Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            27.01.2023
   12.      1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 4th November, 2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Cr.P. No.99 of 2011 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Parties towards their maintenance from the date of application, i.e., from 17th November, 2006.

3. On perusal of the record, it appears that this Court while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 13th January, 2014 in Misc. Case No.6 of 2014 as an interim, directed that the N.B.W. issued against the Petitioner shall not be executed subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.70,000/- (rupees seventy thousand) before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No.99 of 2011.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Ghadei, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that although the said amount was deposited before learned Judge,

// 2 //

Family Court, Bhubaneswar, but the same has not yet been released in favour of the Opposite Parties.

5. Ms. Mehta, learned counsel prays for an adjournment on behalf of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner. She also expressed her inability to argue the matter.

6. Since the matter is of the year, 2012, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer made by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed for non- prosecution.

8. The amount of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand), if deposited by the Petitioner before learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No.99 of 2011 shall be released in favour of the Opposite Parties forthwith on proper acknowledgment.

9. The Opposite Parties are at liberty take appropriate step for realisation of the arrear maintenance in accordance with law.

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

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge