Disposed¶36

Mina Kumari Das@Tarai v. Manoj Kumar Tarai

Orissa HC27 Jul 2026CRLREV/214/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLREV 214/2026 Orissa High Court; condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 654 days delay; revision admitted; CRP Case No.158 of 2019; Family Court Cuttack; maintenance proceeding; disposal for default/non-prosecution; order dated 11.09.2023 set aside; restoration; eight weeks timeline; Rs.3,36,000 payment objection; Mina Kumari Tarai @ Das v. Manoj Kumar Tarai.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 654 days condoned; revision admitted; order dated 11th September, 2023 in CRP Case No.158 of 2019 set aside; proceeding restored before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for disposal as per law preferably within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; urgent certified copy as per rules. ¶36

Mina Kumari Das@Tarai Vs Manoj Kumar Tarai — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 654 days in filing the revision should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Delay of 654 days in filing the revision is condoned: the explanation offered by petitioner No.1 (distress, loss of her father, absence of source of income, hand loan raised to contact her lawyer) is accepted, particularly since future maintenance is to be determined upon restoration of the proceeding before the Family Court.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

In view of the order in IA No.342 of 2026, the revision is admitted.

¶31

Key takeaways

The disposal before the Family Court was not a decision on merit but a disposal due to non-prosecution/default of the petitioners.ratio¶34
The order dated 11th September, 2023 passed in CRP Case No.158 of 2019 is set aside to enable a final decision in accordance with law.ratio¶34
The proceeding in CRP Case No.158 of 2019 stands restored before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, for its disposal as per law preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and the revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (R.K. Pattanaik, J.) in CRLREV No.214 of 2026: (i) IA No.342 of 2026 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act allowed in effect - delay of 654 days in filing the revision condoned on the explanation that petitioner No.1 was in distress, lost her father, had no source of income and could contact her lawyer only after raising a hand loan, the Court being influenced by the fact that future maintenance was to be determined upon restoration of the proceeding; (ii) revision admitted; (iii) order dated 11th September, 2023 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in CRP Case No.158 of 2019 - a disposal for the petitioners' default/non-prosecution, not on merit - set aside; (iv) proceeding restored to the Family Court, Cuttack for disposal as per law preferably within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court recorded, without deciding, the opposite party's objection that Rs.3,36,000/- had been paid to petitioner No.1 in 2023 and that the reason for default was false.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.214 of 2026

¶3

Mina Kumari Tarai @ Das & another

¶4

…. Petitioners

¶5

Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Manoj Kumar Tarai

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. S. Harichanda, Advocate

¶10

on behalf of Mr. R. Achary, Advocate

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

27.07.2026

Order

No.

I.A. No.342 of 2026

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶20

Instant IA is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

¶21

A delay of 654 days is reported as per the SR in filing of the revision.

¶22

Mr. Bahali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an explanation has been offered towards the default, hence, in the interest of justice, it should be condoned.

¶23

Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently objects to the condonation of delay claiming that an amount of Rs.3,36,000/- was paid to the petitioner No.1 in the year 2023 and reason towards default is totally false.

¶24

Page 1 of 3

¶25

It is pleaded on record that petitioner No.1 was in distress and in the meantime, lost her father and thereafter, failed to look after the case and also could not be able to contact her lawyer and therefore, the delay. It is also pleaded that petitioner No.1 was not having source of income at the relevant point of time and only after managing a hand loan by her, contacted the lawyer and then only, the revision could be filed.

¶26

Recording such submission regarding payment of Rs.3 lac and some odd by the opposite party in the year 2023, but reason for the alleged default, this Court is inclined to accept the explanation offered since future maintenance is to be determined upon restoration of the proceeding before the Family Court.

¶27

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶28

IA is disposed of as a result.

¶29

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶30

CRLREV No.214 of 2026

¶31

In view of the order in IA No.342 of 2026, the revision is admitted.

¶32

Instant revision is filed challenging the impugned order in CRP Case No.158 of 2019 on the grounds stated.

¶33

Page 2 of 3

¶34

In fact, the proceeding before the learned Family Court was disposed and dropped for the default of the petitioners. Since there is no decision on merit and it is a disposal due to non-prosecution of the petitioner, this Court, recording the objection of Mr. Harichandan, learned counsel for the opposite parties, is inclined to set aside the order dated 11^th September, 2023 passed therein for a final decision in accordance with law.

¶35

Hence, it is ordered.

¶36

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the restoration of the proceeding in CRP Case No.158 of 2019 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack for its disposal as per law preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶37

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶38

Tudu

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 30-Jul-2026 13:53:48

¶41

Page 3 of 3

Mina Kumari Das@Tarai v. Manoj Kumar Tarai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mina Kumari Das@Tarai v. Manoj Kumar Tarai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanta Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Swarnalata Rout Vs State of Odisha

Jayashree Behera Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Padmabati Srichandan Vs M/S Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co.Ltd., Chhenai

Md. Azhar Vs State of Odisha