Orissa High Court
Jyoshna Devi Patro And Another vs Dillip Kumar Patro on 12 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO. 346 of 2017
Jyoshna Devi Patro and another .... Petitioners
Mr. Tusar Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Dillip Kumar Patro .... Opp. Party
Mr. S.K.Hota, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 12.05.2023
Misc. Case No.477 of 2017 & RPFAM NO. 346 of 2017
3. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 606
days in filing the RPFAM.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits
that the Petitioner No.1 is a destitute lady who seeks to assail the
judgment dated 2nd January, 2016 (Annexure-1) passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in Criminal Proceeding
No.96 of 2013 in refusing to grant maintenance in her favour
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while directing the Opposite party to
pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.2 (her
minor son).
4. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that learned Judge, Family Court solely relying upon
SASANKA Digitally signed by the copy of the FIR- Ext.4, observed that Petitioner No.1 has
SASANKA SEKHAR
SEKHAR SATAPATHY
sufficient means to maintain herself and refused grant of
Date: 2023.05.12
SATAPATHY 20:19:17 +05'30'
// 2 //
maintenance to her. In fact she has no source of income. FIR
cannot be a gospel truth to be relied upon to deny maintenance in
favour of Petitioner No.1. Due to acute poverty, the Petitioner
No.1 could not come to Cuttack and contact her counsel to file
the RPFAM. He also placing reliance upon the case law in the
case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of
Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, reported in (2013)
12 SCC 649 submits that while considering application filed by a
destitute lady, the Court should take a pragmatic view to condone
the delay; without being pedantic in refusing her prayer. He,
therefore, submits that the delay in filing the RPFAM may be
condoned more particularly taking into consideration that a
destitute lady is denied maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5. Mr. Hota, learned counsel being authorized by
Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently
objects the above submission. Referring to the application for
condonation of delay, he submits that only vague averments have
been made in para-3 and 4 of the petition. No detail particulars or
diligence of the Petitioner No.1 has been stated to show that in
fact she was making attempt to come to Cutack to challenge the
impugned order within the stipulated period. He, therefore, prays
for dismissing the petition for condonation of delay.
6. Taking into consideration the submission made by
learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds the submission of
Mr. Hota, learned counsel for the Opposite Party to be correct.
The Petitioner No.1 has not stated regarding steps taken by her
// 3 //
for filing the RPFAM. She has only stated that she is a destitute
and helpless lady and has no source of income to meet the
expenses of filing the revision petition. It is also stated that she
does not have the knowledge of intricacies of procedure of law.
Those grounds are not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay
of 606 days in filing the RPFAM. Petitioner No.1 has other
remedy to get maintenance from the Opposite Party. There can
be no quarrel over the principles laid down in Esha
Bhattacharjee (supra), but the same is of no assistance to the
Petitioner, as no sufficient cause has been shown for condonation
of delay.
7. Accordingly, the Misc. Case No.477 of 2017 filed for
condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequentially, the RPFAM
is dismissed with observation that the Petitioner No.1, if so
advised, may work out her remedy to get maintenance from the
Opposite Party in accordance with law. Petitioners are also at
liberty to realize the arrear maintenance granted in favour of
Petitioner No.2 in accordance with law.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
