Chhaila Behera And Another vs Satyaban Behera .... Opp. Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 10898 Ori

Orissa High Court

Chhaila Behera And Another vs Satyaban Behera .... Opp. Party on 10 December, 2025

Author: Chittaranjan Dash

Bench: Chittaranjan Dash

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                CRLMP No.1275 of 2025

        Chhaila Behera and another         ....                    Petitioners
                                          Mr. R. K. Sarangi, Advocate
                                    -versus-
        Satyaban Behera                    ....                    Opp. Party



                         CORAM:
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

                                       ORDER

Order No.                             10.12.2025
 04.        1.    Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek the intervention of this Court with the following prayers:

"I. Admit this CRLMP.

                  II.   Issue    notice   and      call    for      the
                  records/LCR.
                  III. Issue         appropriate          writ/writs,

order/orders, or direction/directions to set aside the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 under Annexure-4 passed by the learned Judge and direct pronouncement of judgment in CRPL No.276 of 2023."

3. The principal contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the Petitioners filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC claiming maintenance from their only son, who is working in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at Sonbhadra in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Though the matter was adjudicated and posted for judgment, the learned Court, by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction.

4. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, relied upon certain authorities in support of his contention, namely the decisions in the matter of Vijay Kumar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others, Pazhaniappan @ Manickam v. Karuppannan of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, and Sikhar Goel v. Robina Kaushik. However, the said decisions are distinguishable on facts and are not in conformity with the factual matrix of the present case.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, and there being no apparent infirmity in the impugned order on the issue of jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The CRLMP is accordingly disposed of.

6. The Petitioners are, however, at liberty to approach the appropriate authority under the Citizenship Act, if so advised.

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

AKPradhan

Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Dec-2025 19:34:09