Hara Prasad Padhy vs Kalpana Padhy
2023 Latest Caselaw 11459 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             MATA No. 71 of 2023
Hara Prasad Padhy                     .....                               Appellant
                                                             Mr. M. Mishra, Adv.
                                       Vs.
Kalpana Padhy                         .....                            Respondent

            CORAM:
                  JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                  JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
                                          ORDER

21.09.2023 Order No. (Through hybrid mode)

01. I.A. No. 329 of 2023

1. This I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the

appeal challenging the judgment dated 02.11.2022 passed by the

learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam in Civil

Proceeding Case No. 184 of 2020.

2. The Stamp Reporter indicates that the delay in 18 days in

filing the appeal.

3. The explanation for the delay is at paragraphs 3 and 5 of the

I.A.

"3. That the petitioner after obtaining the certified copy of the order through his conducting advocate in lower court collected other documents with a view to file this case and after collection his advocate came to

Cuttack on 02.03.23 and after due consultation with advocate at Cuttack filed this appeal for which some delay is caused.

5. That at the petitioner is serving in defence it is difficult on his part to see all these things from a distance place and he absolutely depends his local advocate who was conducting in lower court."

4. Before issuing notice in the I.A. for condonation of delay, we

thought it proper to peruse the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2022

passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam in

Civil Proceeding No. 184 of 2020. By the said judgment the

maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to respondent no.1 by the

judgment dated 19.05.2015 passed in C.P. No. 279 of 2011 has been

enhanced to Rs.15,000/- and the amount of Rs.2000/- awarded

towards educational expenses of the son has been enhanced from

Rs.2000/- to Rs.5000/-.

5. The monthly maintenance amount and amount towards

educational expenses has been enhanced considering the increase in

the price of essential commodities and educational expenses and the

basic requirement of the respondent and their son. As the amounts

have been enhanced after seven years, we do not find any perversity

in the said reasoning and no reason to interfere with the said

findings. Since we are not satisfied that the impugned judgment is

liable for interference, we do not think it proper to issue notice in the

I.A. for condonation of delay.

6. The I.A. is dismissed.

MATA No. 71 of 2023

7. In view of the dismissal of the I.A. No. 329 of 2023 for

condonation of delay, this appeal is also dismissed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Sukanta (M.S. Sahoo) Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 27-Sep-2023 14:42:32