Orissa High Court
Sanjay Kumar Sadangi vs Supriti Satpathy on 21 June, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jun-2023 19:00:46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 152 OF 2017
Sanjay Kumar Sadangi .... Petitioner
Mr. Rajendra Narayan Rout, Advocate
-versus-
Supriti Satpathy .... Opp. Party
Mr. Anupam Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 21.06.2023
Misc. Case No.223 of 2017
& RPFAM No. 152 OF 2018
4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This RPFAM has been filed assailing the order dated 15th
November, 2016 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Judge, Family
Court, Baripada, Mayurbhanj in C.M.C. No.84 of 2014, whereby
an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. filed by the
Petitioner has been dismissed.
3. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
C.M.C. No.84 of 2014 was filed by the Opposite Party-Wife
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said petition was allowed ex
parte on 28th September, 2016 directing the Petitioner to pay
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite Party-Wife from the
date of application. Since the Petitioner was not given an
opportunity of hearing, he filed an application under Section
126(2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the ex parte judgment on the very day
it was pronounced.
4. There is a delay of one hundred thirty one days in filing
the RPFAM. The Petitioner has also filed an application in
// 2 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jun-2023 19:00:46
Misc. Case No.223 of 2017 for condonation of delay. At
Paragraph-3 of the said application, the Petitioner has explained
that due to his engagement in official duty, as his school was
nominated as Nodal Centre as well as valuation centre, he could
not approach the Court within the stipulated time. He also stated
therein that due to sickness of his parents, the Petitioner could
not consult with his advocate to file the revision petition. Hence,
prayer has been made for condonation of delay and to entertain
the application on merit.
5. Arguing on merit, Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submits that opportunity of hearing was not given to
the Petitioner in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Hence,
the ex parte judgment allowing the application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. should be set aside.
6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Wife
submits that the explanation given in the petition for
condonation of delay is vague and baseless. No details has been
provided in the petition for consideration of this Court to
condone the inordinate delay of one hundred thirty one days.
The Petitioner was set ex parte on 5th October, 2015. No
explanation was offered in the petition under Section 126(2)
Cr.P.C. (Annexure-4) for his non-appearance on the date he was
set ex parte. It is also submitted that the Opposite Party-Wife
has filed RPFAM No.149 of 2018 for enhancement of the
quantum of maintenance. The Petitioner is a Government
employee and at the relevant period his net salary was
Rs.29,221/- per month and he had no dependants. Thus, no
fruitful purpose will be served by condoning the inordinate delay
// 3 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jun-2023 19:00:46
in filing the RPFAM and to entertain the RPFAM on merit. He,
therefore, prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.
7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of the petition for condonation of delay (Misc. Case
No.223 of 2017), it appears that the Petitioner has not offered
any explanation for condonation of inordinate delay of one
hundred thirty one days. No material has been produced before
this Court in support of the contention that the school in which
the Petitioner was serving was nominated as Nodal Centre as
well as valuation centre. Even if, such a contention is accepted,
the same cannot be a ground to condone the delay, as there is no
material available on record to show that the Petitioner was
given any duty which prevented him from filing the RPFAM in
time. The Petitioner has also stated that his parents were sick
from November, 2016 to June, 2017. But no document in
support of the same has been filed.
8. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner does not
dispute the contention of Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the
Opposite Party to the effect that the take home salary of the
Petitioner was Rs.29,221/- per month at the relevant time.
Although the Petitioner was set ex parte on 5th October, 2015,
but in the petition under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure-4),
no explanation for his non-appearance on the said date has been
offered.
9. On perusal of the petition under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C.,
this Court finds that no case has been made out for setting aside
the ex parte judgment passed in C.M.C. No.84 of 2014.
// 4 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jun-2023 19:00:46
10. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to
condone the inordinate delay of one hundred thirty one days in
filing the RPFAM.
11. Accordingly, Misc. Case No.223 of 2017 is dismissed.
Consequently, the RPFAM also stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
