Orissa High Court
Anil Majhi vs Sita Majhi @ Jhankar & .... Opposite ... on 23 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.178 of 2025
Anil Majhi .... Petitioner
Mr. P.C. Behera, Advocate
-versus-
Sita Majhi @ Jhankar & .... Opposite Parties
another
Mr. S.S. Dash, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
23.10.2025
RPFAM No.178 of 2025 &
Order No. I.A. No.277 of 2025
03. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This I.A. has been filed for condonation of delay in
preferring the revision petition.
3. As pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, there is delay of
387 days in presenting the revision petition.
4. Though no written objection has been filed opposing to
such prayer for condonation of delay, learned counsel for the
Opposite Parties submits, as per the settled position of law,
each day of delay has to be properly explained. But neither
delay has been properly explained nor has any convincing
reason been assigned in the application for condonation of
delay to substantiate the prayer made in the I.A.
5. As is revealed from the pleadings made in the I.A., it
has been admitted by the Petitioner that he received the
certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024 on
27.03.2024. The only plea taken in the application for
condonation of delay is that he being a poor man could not
take any legal advice from the lawyer promptly to prefer the
revision petition. But, subsequently, his conducting Counsel
advised him to file revision petition before this Court.
However, as his father had some health issue, he could not
be able to file the revision petition within the limitation
period.
6. No date has been mentioned in the petition, as to when
he consulted his lawyer, when the lawyer advised him to
prefer revision petition and when his father had health issue.
That apart, with effect from 27.03.2024 i.e. the date when he
allegedly received the certified copy of the impugned
judgment till the date of filing of the present revision petition
i.e. 30th June, 2025, the Petitioner has failed to tender any
convincing reason to condone the dely. That apart, it is
ascertained from the impugned judgment dated 07.03.2024
that the learned Court below has directed to pay maintenance
of Rs.2,000/- each to the Opposite Party No.1-wife and
Opposite Party No.2-minor daughter, in toto Rs.4,000/-, from
the date of filing of the said application i.e. 17.01.2023.
7. However, the application for condonation of delay
stands dismissed for not explaining the delay properly in
preferring the revision petition. As a consequence thereof, the
revision petition also stands dismissed.
8. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(S. K. MISHRA)
Prasant JUDGE
Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 24-Oct-2025 18:03:36
