The High Court at Cuttack dismissed a revision petition by the husband regarding an ex parte maintenance order against him, rejecting the plea of condonation of delay as unexplained and inordinate.
The I.A. for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the RPFAM; the interim order stood vacated.
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. 58 OF 2019
Nrusingha Parida and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. L.N. Rayatsingh, Advocate -versus-
Kukuma Parida
…. Opp. Party
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Pradhan, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
06.09.2022
RPFAM No. 58 OF 2019 & I.A. No.119 of 2019
Page 1 of 2
// 2 //
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order, which is pending for consideration.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
ms
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should condone the inordinate delay of 2756 days in filing the revision petition.
Whether the revision petition challenging the maintenance order deserves consideration in light of the delay.
Nrusingha Parida and others
Kukuma Parida
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
