Chandan Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v. None

ORDER 16.04.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. By filing the present CRLMC, the Petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2024, whereby while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the Petitioners were directed to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the Opposite Party. The Petitioners contend that the said cost is arbitrary, excessive and disproportionate to the circumstances of the case.

3. Despite issuance of notice to the Opposite Party on 21.08.2025, none appears on behalf of the Opposite Party when the matter is called for hearing today. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing in absence of the Opposite Party.

4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners at length. Perused the materials available on record.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the Opposite Party, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are his parents (father-in-law and mother-in-law of the Opposite Party), Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are sisters of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.6 is the husband of one of the sisters.

6. It is further submitted that due to matrimonial discord, the Opposite Party voluntarily the matrimonial home and subsequently lodged false and motivated F.I.R.s against Petitioners with an oblique motive to harass them.

7. Learned counsel further submits that after a lapse of more than one and a half years from leaving the matrimonial home, the Opposite Party initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by filing CRLMC No.547 of 2021 before the learned trial Court, claiming various reliefs including monetary relief and maintenance against the Petitioners.

8. It is contended that the learned trial Court, by order dated

28.10.2022, proceeded ex parte against the Petitioners and passed an order restraining them from committing any act of domestic violence. The Court further directed Petitioner No.1 to pay Rs.7,000/- per month towards house rent, Rs.15,000/- per month towards household and medical expenses from the date of application and also to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- within three months. It is submitted that the quantum awarded is excessive and was determined without affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners.

9. Learned counsel submits that Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were not residing at the address mentioned by the Opposite Party in the D.V. proceeding and, therefore, did not receive any summons. It appears from the order sheet that the notices were returned with the postal endorsement “refused” and on that basis, the learned trial Court, vide order dated 05.05.2022, set Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 ex parte. It is contended that such endorsement was improperly obtained and the Petitioners were deprived of an effective opportunity to contest the proceeding, particularly in view of the prevailing COVID-19 situation.

10. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court proceeded on the basis of the DIR submitted by the Protection Officer and initiated the proceeding against Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 and 5 (i.e., present Petitioners), while deleting the names of Opposite Party Nos.4 and 6. Subsequently, Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 were set ex parte and later, by order dated 07.07.2022, the name of Opposite Party No.5 was also deleted. The Petitioners contend that the proceedings suffered from procedural irregularities and lack of proper service.

11. Learned counsel submits that Petitioner No.3 first came to know about the ex parte order only on 10.07.2023 upon receipt of summons in an execution proceeding initiated by the Opposite Party. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed an application under Section 25(2) of the D.V. Act read with Section 126 Cr.P.C. on 22.11.2023 seeking recall/modification of the ex parte order. However, the learned trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 16.01.2024 holding that it lacked jurisdiction to recall the final order.

12. It is further submitted that Petitioner No.1, who was pursuing the matter, was suffering from serious health issues including diabetes, high uric acid, and neurological complications, coupled with mental distress. During this period, he was also taken into custody from

12.04.2024 to 13.05.2024 in connection with the execution proceeding arising out of the D.V. case. While in custody, he instructed his counsel to obtain certified copies, which were applied for on

08.05.2024 and made available on 28.06.2024. Thereafter, upon legal advice, the Petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.64 of 2024 challenging the ex parte order dated 28.10.2022.

13. It is contended that the learned Sessions Judge, while dealing with the petition for condonation of delay, failed to properly appreciate the bona fide reasons assigned by the Petitioners and mechanically imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- vide order dated 07.10.2024, without recording adequate reasons as to why such a heavy cost was warranted.

14. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioners belong to a poor economic background and Petitioner No.1 has no stable source of income. It is argued that imposition of such an exorbitant cost defeats the very purpose of condonation of delay and effectively denies the Petitioners access to justice, especially when Petitioner No.1 has already undergone imprisonment for non-compliance with the maintenance order.

15. After hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the available materials on record, this Court finds that although some cost is justified to compensate the Opposite Party for delay, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar appears to be excessive and disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the cost is reduced to Rs.50,000/-.

16. In view of the above, the delay in filing the criminal appeal shall stand condoned subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) by the Petitioners before the learned trial Court within a stipulated period. Upon such deposit, the learned appellate Court shall proceed to hear and dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.

17. With this observation, the CRLMC stands disposed of.

18. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

19. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

20. A copy of this order be communicated to the learned trial Court for information. Judge ( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Sipun