Antaryami Sahoo And Another vs Banalata Sahoo And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 4914 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              RPFAM NO. 264 OF 2022
                 Antaryami Sahoo and another           ....      Petitioners
                                          Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate
                                         -versus-
                 Banalata Sahoo and another            .... Opp. Parties



                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            02.05.2023
             RPFAM NO. 264 OF 2022
              & I.A. NO. 346 OF 2022

   1.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. I.A. No. 346 of 2022 has been filed for condonation of delay of 178 days in filing the RPFAM, as pointed out by the S.R..

3. Judgment and order dated 18th April, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Proceeding No.64 of 2020 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioners have been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month each to the Opposite Party No.1 from the date of application, i.e. 2nd December, 2020.

4. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that due to communication gap between the Petitioners and their counsel, delay in filing the RPFAM has occurred. It is his submission that the Petitioners came to know about the impugned order when they received notice in the execution case on 22nd

// 2 //

October, 2022. As such, delay in filing the RPFAM should be condoned.

5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the petition, it appears that save and except the aforesaid ground taken in the petition, no material has been produced before this Court in support of the same. Although it is stated that the Petitioners received the notice in the execution case on 22nd October, 2022, but no material to that effect has been placed before this Court. There is also no material on record to show that the Petitioners, who contested the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., had taken any interest to know about the result of the said application. In the instant case, the Petitioners assail the impugned order directing them to pay maintenance to their old mother.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case in its totality, I am not inclined to condone the delay in filing the RPFAM. Accordingly, the I.A. is dismissed. Consequently, the RPFAM also stands dismissed.

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

                                               (K.R. Mohapatra)
bks                                                 Judge