The High Court of Orissa dismissed an RPFAM seeking restoration of a maintenance petition dismissed for default. Finding the petitioner failed to explain a gap in medical treatment, the court held there was no sufficient cause and refused interference.
RPFAM No.241 of 2016 dismissed; petitioner may file a fresh application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
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.241 of 2016
Seema Sethi @ Karan
..… Petitioner Mrs. M. Kanungo, Advocate
-versus-
Rajesh Karan
…. Opp. Party
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Order No.
ORDER 13.10.2022
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
deliberate. Under compelling circumstances, she could not appear before the Family Court, as she was undergoing treatment from` 22nd October, 2014 to 24th December, 2014. Learned Judge, Family Court disbelieving illness of the Petitioner rejected the Petition and refused to restore the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In support of her case, she placed reliance on the decision in the case of Smt. Aruna Kar Vs. Dr. Sarat Dash @ Nachhi , reported in 1993 Cri.L.J. 1506, wherein it is held as under:-
“5. Keeping in view the benign provision in Section 125 enacted to in into economic condition of neglected wife and discarded divorcees and to save enumerated persons from vagrancy and destitution, Welfare laws must be so read as to be effective delivery systems of salutary objects sought to be served by the Legislature. When beneficiaries are weaker sections like destitution women, spirit of Art. 15(3) of the Constitution must be light meaning of Section 125 and its sister clauses and provisions must receive compassionate expansion of sense that the words used permit. Similar sentiment was expressed by the Apex Court in Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothie and Anr. AIR 1979 SC 362.”
She therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5 and to direct learned trial Court to hear the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on merit by restoring the same.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
was under treatment from 10th June, 2014 to 12th September, 2014. In the second certificate, it was stated that the Petitioner was ill from 22nd October, 2014 to 24th December, 2014 and in the third certificate it was shown that the Petitioner was ill from 25th December, 2014 to 26th March, 2015. On analysis of materials on record, the Family Court found that there is no explanation of the period from 13th September, 2014 to 21st October, 2014. Hence, he rejected the petition to restore the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
years have elapsed. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
s.s.satapathy
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's order refusing to restore a Section 125 Cr.P.C. petition dismissed for default due to unexplained absence.
If the petitioner failed to explain her absence for a specific period, whether sufficient cause exists for restoration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Aruna Kar Vs. Dr. Sarat Dash @ NachhiReferred¶17
Smt. Aruna Kar Vs. Dr. Sarat Dash @ Nachhi, 1993 Cri.L.J. 1506 · Who else cites this
Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothie and Anr.Referred¶18
Bai Tahira v. Ali Hussain Fissalli Chothie and Anr. AIR 1979 SC 362 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Seema Sethi @ Karan
Rajesh Karan
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
