Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 390 (ORI)

Ajaya Kumar Samantaray v. Ranjita Das

2014-07-03

I.MAHANTY

body2014
Judgment I. Mahanty, J. In the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 24.9.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda in Crl. Misc. Case No.176 of 2002 directing the petitioner to deposit the arrear maintenance amount in favour of the opposite party pending disposal of the civil suit before the Civil Court regarding legality or otherwise of the marriage. 2. It is asserted on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party is not the legal married wife and no marriage ceremony had ever been performed between the petitioner and opposite party as per Hindu custom. It is further asserted that the opposite party was his neighbour in his village and during the student carrier, they were in love and maintained no physical relationship. It is asserted that the family members of the opposite party forcibly took the petitioner to their custody and tried to create evidence of marriage, for which there was rioting between the two families and in order to prove that the opposite party was not the legal married wife of the petitioner, the petitioner was compelled to file a suit i.e. T.S. No. 10 of 1999 which was decreed ex parte in favour of the petitioner on 30.1.2002. The opposite party, thereafter, has sought to file Misc. Case No.151 of 2002 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Khurda to set aside the ex parte order and in the meantime, the present petitioner filed CRLMC No.1058 of 2002 before this Court wherein this Court directed stay of consideration of the opposite party’s application to set aside the ex parte order subject to the condition that the present petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5000/-in Court and incompliance of the said direction, the present petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.5000/-on 21.2.2003. Thereafter, the final order was passed in the aforesaid CRLMC on 4.7.2006 whereby, this Court directed that even though the petition filed by the opposite party-wife for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. had been allowed and cost had been awarded and the same having not been paid, the said judgment/ decree still remains binding and hence, the matter was remanded back by quashing the impugned order and directed the learned S.D.J.M. to give opportunities to the parties to prove as to whether the ex parte judgment/decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khurda in T.S. No.10/99 has been set aside or still binding on the parties and thereafter, to pass necessary orders in consonance with law. By the impugned order dated 24.9.2007 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.176 of 2002, the learned S.D.J.M. came to hold that the opposite party (present petitioner) had complied with the directions of the civil court by depositing a sum of Rs.2000/-on 17.8.2007 and consequently, the ex parte decree/judgment in the civil suit stood set aside and therefore, the matter remained subjudice as on the date of passing of the said order. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner to return Rs.5000/-deposited by him before the trial court came to be rejected. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the impugned order, I find no justifiable cause for interfering with the order impugned and I am of the considered view that the trial court has sufficiently dealt with the issues in dispute and in particular, complied with the earlier directions issued by this Court in CRLMC No.1058 of 2002. 4. Therefore, the present CRLMC stands dismissed.