Shri Bharat Seth vs Puspanjali Seth
2026 Latest Caselaw 634 Ori

Orissa High Court

Shri Bharat Seth vs Puspanjali Seth on 22 January, 2026

Author: Savitri Ratho

Bench: Savitri Ratho

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                CRLMP No. 17 of 2026
                 Shri Bharat Seth                         ....       Petitioner
                                    Mr. Mohammed Mustaq Ansari, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 1. Puspanjali Seth
                 3. Master Dharani Seth                   ....    Opp. Parties

                                                 Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty,
                                                Additional Standing Counsel
                     CORAM:
                           JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
                                 ORDER

Order No.                       22.01.2026
                               (Through hybrid Mode)

  01.       1.      This CRLMC has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India challenging the ex-parte order dated 22.04.2017 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Jharsuguda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 306 of 2016 in an application under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short "DV Act").

2. In the said order, the Petitioner has been directed not to commit any further act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person, if she along with her son will reside in the said household with him. He was further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- to the aggrieved person per month towards maintenance and a sum of Rs.3000/- per month towards alternative accommodation with effect from the date of filling of application i.e. 6.05.2016 and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the aggrieved person, He was also directed to return the

stridhan of the aggrieved person which was in possession of his family, failing which the I.I.C., Thelkoli Police Station or I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station was directed to recover the same from the possession of the Respondent from their house. Free copy of the order was directed to be issued to both parties as well as the I.I.C., Jharsuguda Police Station.

3. When it was brought to the notice of Mr. Mohammed Mustaq Ansari, learned counsel for the Petitioner has the remedy under Section 29 of the DV Act to file appeal challenging the order of the learned Magistrate, he submits that in view of the fact that an ex-parte decree of divorce has been passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur in C.P. No. 99 of 2016 on 27.08.2018 and as copy of the order dated 22.04.2017 was never communicated to the Petitioner till he received notice in Misc. Execution Case No. 239 of 2025 and as the marriage of the Petitioner and the aggrieved person has been dissolved by a judgment dated 27.08.2018 passed in Civil Proceeding No. 99 of 2016 he has approached this Court. He also submits that there are other illegalities in the order, for which it is liable to be set aside. He finally submits that liberty may be granted to him to file appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. As the appeal under the Section is required to be filed before the Court of Session within thirty days, he shall file the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay and direction may be issued for its consideration.

4. In view of the provisions of Section 29 of the DV Act, which provides for filing of appeal, I am not inclined to entertain

this CRLMP nor is it necessary to grant liberty to the Petitioner to file appeal.

5. In view of the availability of alternative remedy, I am not inclined to exercise power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and entertain this CRLMP. It is accordingly dismissed.

6. If the Petitioner files appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act before the learned Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda along with an application for condonation of delay, within a period of three weeks from today, they shall be considered in accordance with law.

7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the submission of the learned counsel regarding the illegality in the impugned order or explanation for delay in challenging the order.

8. It appears that although only one document has been annexed, the annextures have been marked as Annexures-4 series, 5 series, 7 series and 8 series. This defect has however not been pointed out by the Stamp Reporter.

9. The Stamp Reporter should to be more careful while preparing the Stamp report.

10. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

Sukanta

Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 23-Jan-2026 17:08:08