p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.724 of 2025 1. Umakanta Parida 2. Udayanath Parida 3. Urmila Parida …. Petitioners Mr. J.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Lita Manjari Mohapatra …. Opposite Party Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 07.07.2026 09. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite Party. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed assailing the judgment dated 23.07.2025 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2025 confirming the order dated 10.11.2021 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge (Women’s) Jagatsinghpur in D.V. Misc. Case No.176 of 2018 affirming the monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month. 3. It is stated at the Bar that the execution is pending vide Criminal Execution Case No.2 of 2022 p. 2 before the Asst. Sessions Judge (Womens) Court, Jagatsinghpur. 4. Admittedly, there is delay of 1261 days in filing the appeal. 5. Learned Appellate Court in paragraph-7 of the impugned order has extensively dealt with the conduct of the Petitioner. For convenience of reference, the said paragraph is extracted hereunder; “7. On perusal of the record, I found that the impugned order dtd.10.11.2021 passed in D.V. Misc. case No.176/2018 was challenged by the appellants vide Crl. Appeal No.15/2021 and that appeal was filed after elapse of period of limitation. A petition U/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was filed in Crl. Appeal No.15/2021 and due non prosecution of that proceeding and as the appellants sought several adjournments, this Court rejected adjournment petition on 27.07.2023 and the appeal Memo was rejected being not admitted. Again a fresh appeal has been filed before this Court vide Crl. Appeal No.12/2025 on 26.4.2025. When the appellant No.1 was aware about the passing of the impugned order dtd.10.11.2021, even had he been sincere about the Crl. Appeal No.15/2021, he could have filed the appeal in time and that appeal was also filed in a delayed period and it p. 3 remain idle before this Court for next two years which was finally disposed on 27.7.2023. Even the appellants could not vigilant to obtain the certified copy or contact their lawyer to know about the status of their earlier criminal appeal. It is the responsibility of a party to come to court day to day to know status of his case. Had they been sincere, they could have known the date of adjournment granted by the Court in Crl. Appeal No.15/2021. It is the duty of the appellants to prosecute their case by engaging a counsel of his choice and if there was no communication between him and his counsel, the appellant or other party concern should be held responsible. They cannot take any plea that their Counsel not communicated them regarding order of dismissal of dtd.27.7.2023. Besides that the certified copy of order of dismissal was handed over to the concerned party on 19.6.2024. The present appeal was filed on 26.4.2025. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the certified copy of dismissal order was not promptly handed over to them by their Counsel. Had they been sincere to obtain the certified copy from the Court directly, they could have get it in time. For their inaction, they cannot take a plea that their counsel did not communicate them. It was their responsibility to remain present on reach date of adjournment and to prosecute their case p. 4 diligently. The impugned order is nothing but the maintenance award passed in favour of the respondent. It appears that the appellants are delaying the matter only to harash the respondent and not willing to pay any maintenance to her which has been awarded in her favour vide impugned order. So the conduct of the appellants show that they were negligent and there is clear establishment of latches in preferring the appeal. The criminal appeal is a creation of statute. Specific limitation has been provided for in D.V Act in taking prompt action to prefer the appeal. A person cannot come forward after four years to challenge the impugned order. In that view of the matter, I found that the appellants miserably failed to establish that they were prevented from approaching the court in this appeal due to reasonable grounds. The grounds have not been properly explained for establishing their case and as such, the limitation petition is rejected. The appeal memo is rejected being not admitted.” And, referring to the same, the learned counsel for the aggrieved person submits that the matter does not merit consideration. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that delay has occasioned because of the laches on account of lawyer, which p. 5 was also specifically pleaded before the learned Appellate Court. And, since the same was not considered in its proper perspective, the Petitioner ought not to be non-suited. 7. It is also stated that to prove his bonafides that the matter may be settled through ADR by way of mediation, the Petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/-. 8. So far as the mediation is concerned, learned counsel for the aggrieved person, Ms. Mohanty, on instruction, submits that at this stage the Opposite Party is not aggregable for mediation. 9. On going through the recitals of the Appellate Court, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the Petitioner has been bonafide in pursuing the appeal and shifting the blame on to the lawyer is a modus, which is adhered to just to wriggle out of the limitation as prescribed. 10. It is trite that the law of limitation is to be strictly construed more so when it comes to dealing with a case under a beneficial legislation like D.V. Act. 11. In the light of the same, this Court is not persuaded to hold that “sufficient cause” has been shown for condonation of delay. In this context, this p. 6 Court relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 and there is no infirmity in the Appellate Court rejecting the same on the ground of limitation. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands dismissed. 13. The demand draft which has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioners to the tune of Rs.50,000/- shall be returned to the learned counsel for the Petitioner on proper identification and acknowledgement. (V. Narasingh) Judge Santoshi