Orissa High Court
Mantu @ Chinmaya Prasad Nath vs Rasmitanath Sharma .... Opp. Party on 16 May, 2023
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-May-2023 19:29:08
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 225 OF 2017
Mantu @ Chinmaya Prasad Nath .... Petitioner
Sharma
Mr. A.K. Sarangi, Advocate
-versus-
Rasmitanath Sharma .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 16.05.2023
3. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 18th April, 2017 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in Cr.P. No.63 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the petition.
3. A passover was sought for in the first hour. After lunch interval when the matter was called again, Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has misplaced his brief and prays for an adjournment.
4. Since the matter is of the year, 2017 and there is a delay of thirty two days in filing the RPFAM, which has not been condoned, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer made by learned counsel for the Petitioner.
5. On perusal of the petition for condonation of delay (Misc. Case No.153 of 2019), it appears that the Petitioner has taken a ground that he was suffering from high fever from 15th July, 2017 to 1st September, 2017 and could not come to Cuttack to file the Page 1 of 2 Signature Not Verified // 2 // Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-May-2023 19:29:08 RPFAM. No material in support of the ground taken in the petition has been filed. It further appears that the Petitioner was contesting the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order was within his knowledge. Thus, there was no justification on the part of the Petitioner not to file the revision in time. The grounds taken in the petition is not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the RPFAM in absence of any document to that effect.
6. In view of the above, Misc. Case No.153 of 2019 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the RPFAM stands dismissed being barred by limitation.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
Page 2 of 2