[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sibapati Acharya @ Shibapati vs Santoshi Panigrahi ..... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 300 of 2026
Sibapati Acharya @ Shibapati ..... Petitioner
Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate
-versus-
Santoshi Panigrahi ..... Opposite Party
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
12.03.2026
Order No. (Through hybrid mode)
01.
1. This CRLMP has been filed challenging the order dated
20.11.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak in
Criminal Proceeding No. 48 of 2017 (Annexure-5) rejecting the
application of the Petitioner filed under Section 9 of the Family
Courts Act.
2. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
recording of evidence in the case is over since 2017. As the
Opposite Party has remarried about 4 years back, in order to bring
that to the notice of the Court, an application under Section 9 of the
Family Courts Act had been filed by the Petitioner, but the same has
been rejected on untenable grounds.
3. Perused the order dated 20.11.2025. While dismissing the
application of the Petitioner, the learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhadrak has held as follows:
"4. I have gone through the case record minutely. It is
found that the petitioner has filed the petition seeking
maintenance from the OP on 24.3.2017. She had filed her
evidence affidavit on 17.10.2017 and cross-examined on
7.9.2017. She was further cross examined on recall on
16.3.2022. The record was fixed for argument on 6.5.2022.
But argument could not be done as the OP had filed a
petition u/s 91 CrPC. While the matter stood thus, further
progress of the case was stayed by the order of Hon'ble
High Court of Orissa vide order dtd. 24.6.2022 in CRLMP
802/2022. Neither of the parties have submitted the order of
Hon'ble Court and the matter was adjourned till 24.9.2024
awaiting intimation from Hon'ble Court. On 24.9.2024 this
court has visited the web site of Hon'ble Court to ascertain
the position of CRLMP 802/2022 and came to know that the
matter was dismissed by Hon'ble Court on 23.8.2024 vide
order No.6.
5. Then this case record was again posted for
argument.
6. On 11.12.2024 the record was put up for
argument. But on that day the OP had filed a petition u/s
311 CrPC for further cross examination of PW1. The
petition for recall was rejected by this court on 13.12.2024
and the record was posted for argument on 26.12.2024.
7. On 24.12.2024 the record was put up on the
strength of advance petition filed by the OP and on that the
OP has filed another petition for initiation of action under
section 340 of CrPC against the petitioner. Such petition
was disposed of on 19.5.2025 and the petition filed by the
OP was rejected.
8. As both parties have not submitted their
disclosure affidavit of assets and liabilities, direction was
given to them for immediate compliance. While the matter
stood thus, the present petition dtd.25.7.2025 was filed by
the OP u/s 9 of Family Courts Act.
9. It clearly emerges from the foregoing, discussion
that the Opposite Party has been resorting to various
dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings of this case. The
repeated filing of multiple petitions by the Opposite Party
appears to be a deliberate attempt to prolong the litigation,
thereby causing undue harassment to the petitioner and
obstructing the proper administration of justice.
10. In the present proceedings, the overall tone and
tenor of the Opposite Party's averments indicate an attempt
to coerce the petitioner into a settlement rather than to
contest the matter on its merits. The OP has also leveled
allegations against the petitioner involving her character
and also expressed his verdict as to why the petitioner is not
eligible for getting maintenance from the OP. Section 9 of
Family Courts Act mandates that at the first instance the
court shall try to persuade the parties for a mutual
settlement. Here first instance means immediately after
appearance of the opposite party after receiving summons.
The court is also empowered to adjourn the proceeding at
any stage, whenever it sees there is a chance of settlement.
In the present case at hand, there is absolutely no material
which can show that there is any chance of settlement
between the parties. Furthermore, both parties are in
litigating terms since 2017. Within these long 8 years, none
of the parties have ever Sopted for a settlement. In his
petition the OP has prayed to refer this case for settlement.
Allowing the Opposite Party's prayer would virtually put the
present proceeding to an indefinite stagnation, thereby
defeating the very purpose of expeditious adjudication.
11. In view of the above discussion this court is of
the considered opinion that the petition filed by the Op has
no merit and such petition is filed only to linger the
proceeding and to harass the petitioner. Accordingly, any
merit. petition stands rejected being devoid of any merit."
4. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order so as to
interfere with the same.
5. Perusal of the order reveals that the evidence of both parties
has been recorded in the case but at the stage of argument, the case
was being adjourned by the Petitioner.
6. In view of the submission of the Petitioner regarding the
developments during pendency of the proceeding, the Petitioner is at
liberty to file an application for adducing further evidence. If such
application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the
same shall be considered by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhadrak in accordance with law and if any witness is summoned/
recalled, it will be at the cost of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party
will be given the chance to cross-examine such witnesses. It is also
observed that the Criminal Proceeding No.48 of 2017 shall be
disposed of expeditiously without granting unnecessary
adjournments as the case is pending since 2017.
7. With the above observation, the CRLMP is accordingly
disposed of.
8. As the case has been disposed of without issuing notice to the
Opposite Party, she is at liberty to file an application for
modification/ recall of this order.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
puspa
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
