Petitioner challenged an ex parte maintenance order on grounds of procedural irregularity. The High Court found the trial court violated statutory procedure by having the judgment ready before the hearing date. Order set aside and matter remitted.
Impugned ex parte order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. set aside and matter remitted to Family Court for fresh adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.172 OF 2016
Tabruk Khan
..… Petitioner
Mr. Arun Kumar Budhia, Advocate
-versus-
Ruksana Bibi
Opp. Party
Mr. Sanjib Kumar Bhanjdeo, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
01.08.2022
“Order dated 10.6.2016
Petitioner is present O.P. is absent. One time petition is filed on behalf of O.P. without sign of O.P. Hence it is not maintainable. Put up on 20.6.2016 for appearance of O.P. is last chance. Failing which the O.P. 1 will be set ex parte.
Order dated 20.6.2016
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
Petitioner is present. The Judgment is ready in separate sheet and pronounced in the open court. The petition for maintenance u/s. 125 Cr.P.C. is allowed in part on contest against the Opp. party without cost. The Opp. party has to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of the application i.e. 12.4.2013. The maintenance amount is to be paid in the first week of each successive month starting from the month of July, 2016. The Opp. Party will pay the 1 year maintenance amount in four consecutive equal monthly instalments along with the current maintenance in case, the Opp. Party fails to pay the current as well as arrear maintenance amount as directed above, the petitioner is at liberty to recover the same through the court.”
3.1 It is his submission that vide order dated 10th June, 2016, learned Judge, Family Court posted the matter to 20th June, 2016 providing last opportunity to the present Petitioner to appear. However, order dated 20th June, 2016 clearly disclosed that the judgment was made ready on that date and was pronounced only on 30th June, 2016. When the Petitioner was given last opportunity to appear on 20th June, 2016, learned Judge, Family Court could not have made the judgment ready on that date. He, therefore, submits that the entire proceeding in C.P. No.109 of 2013 is vitiated. As such, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1 and remit the matter back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Khordha for fresh adjudication giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
the impugned order has been passed. It is his submission that the Petitioner has not paid a single pie to the Opposite Party till date. The marriage between the parties is not disputed. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Even if the Petitioner is given opportunity of hearing he cannot improve upon his case. Since the impugned order is supported by reasons the same warrants no interference.
6.1 In order to avoid further delay parties are directed to appear before learned Judge, Family Court, Khordha on 16th
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
s.s.satapathy
August, 2022 along with certified copy of this order to receive further instruction in the matter.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned maintenance order passed ex parte on themes of irregular proceedings warranting setting aside.
Whether the matter should be remitted to the Family Court for fresh adjudication with a proper opportunity of being heard.
Tabruk Khan
Ruksana Bibi
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
