Alpana Chhotray And Others vs Sujit Kumar Dalei
2023 Latest Caselaw 914 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 178 OF 2015
                 Alpana Chhotray and others              ....       Petitioners
                                              Mr. Suvashis Patnaik, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Sujit Kumar Dalei                         ....     Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             24.01.2023
   5.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 9th July, 2015 passed in Criminal Proceeding No.118 of 2012 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar directed the Opposite Party to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to Petitioner No.1, Rs.2,000/- per month to Petitioner No.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to Petitioner No.3 from the date of filing of application i.e. from 24th August, 2012.

3. On perusal of the record, it appears that there is a delay of twenty-eight days in filing the RPFAM. Accordingly, vide order dated 23rd August, 2016, this Court issued notice in the matter of limitation. But, the said notice returned with an endorsement of the Postal Department that "Addressee left from given address". Accordingly, the matter was listed before the Lawzima on 4th January, 2014 on which date, learned Registrar (Judicial) directed to take fresh steps for issuance of notice to the Opposite Party in his present correct address by Speed Post with A.D. within a week from that date. Since then no steps was taken for issuance of notice. It also appears that no step was taken by learned counsel

// 2 //

for the Petitioners to get the matter listed. It is at the instance of the Court, the RPFAM has been listed.

4. Since the order of learned Registrar (Judicial) has not been complied with for a period of more than five years that too in the matter of issuance of notice on the limitation, I am not inclined to grant any further adjournment, as prayed for by Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioners to take out notice.

5. Accordingly, Misc. Case No. 83 of 2016 filed for condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

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

                                         (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                             Judge