Disposed

Arjun Charan Mohanta v. Basanti Mohanta

Orissa HC10 Feb 2023RPFAM/33/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought setting aside ex parte maintenance and execution orders. Court refused interference with earlier dismissed maintenance order but directed petitioner to approach Family Court to vary marginally impugned order of imprisonment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to approach Family Court to vary order of imprisonment; High Court refuses interference with dismissed maintenance order.

Arjun Charan Mohanta Vs Basanti Mohanta — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No. 33 OF 2010

¶2

Arjun Charan Mohanta …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. Samarendra Mohanty, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

Basanti Mohanta and another

¶6

…. Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

10.02.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

The Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the ex parte order dated 28^th September, 2000 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Crl. P. No.583 of 1999, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.450/per month to the Opposite Parties from the date of filing of the proceeding, i.e., 16^th October, 1999.

¶14

The Petitioner also assails the order dated 27^th March, 2010 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No.33 of 2001 filed for execution of the order of maintenance.

¶15

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 27^th March, 2010 under Annexure3 is per se illegal, as learned Judge, Family Court has no jurisdiction to sentence the Petitioner to undergo imprisonment for a term not more than one month. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that relationship between the parties is seriously disputed. Had the Petitioner been given an opportunity of hearing, he could have defended his case properly. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders under Annexures-1 and 3.

¶19

On perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner had filed an application to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance dated 28^th September, 2000 under Annexure-1, which was dismissed vide order dated 17^th December, 2002 under Annexure2. The said order was remained unassailed. As such, this Court has no scope to interfere with the order dated 28^th September, 2000 under Annexure-1. Further on perusal order dated 27^th March, 2010 under Annexure-3, it appears that the Petitioner has been sentenced to nine hundred ten days imprisonment from the date of remand for default of payment of arrear maintenance of ninety one months. This Court while issuing notice on 14^th May, 2010, passed an interim order in M.C. No.57 of 2010 directing as under:

¶20

“Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Miss. Samapika Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, this Court directs the trial court to admit the petitioner to bail in Criminal Proceeding No.33 of 2001 on such terms and conditions as would be deemed fit and proper with a condition that the Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) in two monthly installments.

¶22

As soon as the petitioner deposits the first installment of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand), the trial court shall admit the petitioner to bail with an undertaking that he shall deposit the second installment of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) within a period of one month thereafter.

¶23

The misc. case is disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy.”

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

In the meantime, more than twelve years have already elapsed.

¶27

None appears for the Opposite Parties although they are represented through learned counsel.

¶28

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner is at liberty to move learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for variance of the order dated 27^th March, 2010 under Annexure-3 passed in Criminal Proceeding No.33 of 2001, if cause of action still survives.

¶29

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the RPFAM stands disposed of.

¶30

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶31

application.

¶32

(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶33

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Arjun Charan Mohanta v. Basanti Mohanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Charan Mohanta v. Basanti Mohanta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Binod Parida Vs Bishnu Priya Parida

Subhasmita Khatua Vs Kausik Kumar Sahoo

Pradeep K.Panigrahy@ Vs Archana Panda

Jambeswar Naik Vs Reena Naik

Renubala Behera Vs Deputy Registrar, Judical, High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

The Headmaster, Ugme, Nuasahi School, Balliguda Vs Gundicha Dash