Rushabha Sahu vs Nalini Sahu
2023 Latest Caselaw 5548 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               RPFAM NO. 67 of 2023
                 Rushabha Sahu                            ....         Petitioner
                                                  Mr. Abhilash Mishra, Advocate

                                          -versus-
                 Nalini Sahu                              ....        Opp. Party

                                  CORAM:
                                 JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            09.05.2023
                    IA No. 74 of 2023 & RPFAM No.67 of 2023

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

2. The IA has been filed for condonation of delay of 1006 days in filing the RPFAM, as pointed out by SR.

3. Judgment dated 28th February, 2020 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in CMC No.1034 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of application, i.e., 23rd December, 2016.

4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after the impugned order was passed, the Petitioner could not take step for filing the RPFAM immediately due to outbreak of COVID-19. He could not come to Cuttack to file the RPFAM due to restriction in vehicular movement. Further, due to financial difficulty the Petitioner could only contact his Counsel at Cuttack on 6th February, 2023 and took steps for filing of the

// 2 //

RPFAM. Hence, he prays for condoning the delay in filing the RPFAM.

5. Although it is stated that after restrictions in vehicular movement was lifted the Petitioner came to Cuttack and contacted his counsel, but no details of such contention has been provided in the IA. It is not stated in the petition as to when the restrictions of vehicular movement was lifted. However, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it was lifted in August, 2021. But, the RPFAM was filed on 28th February, 2023. Further, the Petitioner contends that he contacted his counsel at Cuttack on 6th February, 2023, i.e., about two years after the restriction, as aforesaid, was lifted. Thus, the ground that due to restriction of vehicular movement, the Petitioner could not come to Cuttack, is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. It further appears that no details of his income has been provided either in the RPFAM or in the petition for condonation of delay. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for condonation of inordinate delay of 1006 days in filing the RPFAM.

6. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequentially, the RPFAM is also dismissed being barred by limitation.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

s.s.satapathy