This appeal assailed an ex parte order under Section 125 CrPC. The court held that the remedy lies in setting aside the ex parte order under Section 126(2) CrPC and dismissed the RPFAM as non-maintainable without such an application.
RPFAM dismissed; directed petitioner to file application to set aside ex parte order under Section 126(2) CrPC.
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. 316 OF 2019
Sri Harikrushna Mohanty Petitioner
Mr. Bijay Kumar Behera, Advocate -versus-
Smt. Ranjita Chudhury
…. Opp. Part
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Order No.
ORDER 01.08.2022
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
take into consideration the pendency of RPFAM before this Court from 30th December, 2019 till date along with other grounds.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
ms
Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against an ex parte maintenance order is maintainable without first filing an application to set aside the ex parte order.
Whether the proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. provides a remedy for aggrieved defaulters.
How should the condonation of delay be guided when the RPFAM is pending during the period of delay in filing the application to set aside ex parte order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Harikrushna Mohanty
Smt. Ranjita Chudhury
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
