AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 397 wordsK.R. Mohapatra, J
I.A. NO.211 OF 2019 AND RPFAM NO.109 OF 2019
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
I.A. No.211 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 615 days in filing the RPFAM as pointed out by SR.
The Petitioner explaining the delay at Paragraph-2 of the petition has stated that the Petitioner was undergoing financial hardship and his health condition was not good for which he was not in a position to file the RPFAM within the stipulated period.
There is no material on record to show that the Petitioner was ill and there was any compelling circumstance for the Petitioner not to file the RPFAM in time.
Ms. Das, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that the Petitioner had contested the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and had knowledge of the order impugned in the RPFAM. Since no material is available on record in support of explanation of delay, the petition for condonation of delay should be dismissed and consequently, the RPFAM should also be dismissed.
Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that averment has been made in the petition to the effect that the Petitioner had financial hardship and his health condition was not good for which he could not file RPFAM in time. The same is not sufficient to condone the inordinate delay of 615 days in filing the RPFAM. No details in support of the contention of the Petitioner has been furnished. As such, the explanation offered for condonation of delay is not acceptable.
Judgment dated 29th April, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda in Criminal Petition No.157 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby refusing the prayer to grant maintenance in favour of Opposite Party No.1, learned Judge, Family Court directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2 from date of filing of application, i.e., from 12th May, 2016.
Since there is no sufficient grounds to condone the inordinate delay of 615 days in filing the RPFAM, the I.A, for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 211 of 2019) stands dismissed.
Consequently, the RPFAM also stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
…………………………