p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 300 of 2026 Sibapati Acharya @ Shibapati ….. Petitioner Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate -versus- Santoshi Panigrahi ….. Opposite Party Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER 12.03.2026 Order No. 01. (Through hybrid mode) 1. This CRLMP has been filed challenging the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak in Criminal Proceeding No. 48 of 2017 (Annexure-5) rejecting the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act. 2. Sk. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that recording of evidence in the case is over since 2017. As the Opposite Party has remarried about 4 years back, in order to bring that to the notice of the Court, an application under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act had been filed by the Petitioner, but the same has been rejected on untenable grounds. 3. Perused the order dated 20.11.2025. While dismissing the application of the Petitioner, the learned Judge, Family Court, p. 2 Bhadrak has held as follows: “4. I have gone through the case record minutely. It is found that the petitioner has filed the petition seeking maintenance from the OP on 24.3.2017. She had filed her evidence affidavit on 17.10.2017 and cross-examined on 7.9.2017. She was further cross examined on recall on 16.3.2022. The record was fixed for argument on 6.5.2022. But argument could not be done as the OP had filed a petition u/s 91 CrPC. While the matter stood thus, further progress of the case was stayed by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide order dtd. 24.6.2022 in CRLMP 802/2022. Neither of the parties have submitted the order of Hon'ble Court and the matter was adjourned till 24.9.2024 awaiting intimation from Hon'ble Court. On 24.9.2024 this court has visited the web site of Hon'ble Court to ascertain the position of CRLMP 802/2022 and came to know that the matter was dismissed by Hon'ble Court on 23.8.2024 vide order No.6. 5. Then this case record was again posted for argument. 6. On 11.12.2024 the record was put up for argument. But on that day the OP had filed a petition u/s 311 CrPC for further cross examination of PW1. The petition for recall was rejected by this court on 13.12.2024 and the record was posted for argument on 26.12.2024. 7. On 24.12.2024 the record was put up on the strength of advance petition filed by the OP and on that the p. 3 OP has filed another petition for initiation of action under section 340 of CrPC against the petitioner. Such petition was disposed of on 19.5.2025 and the petition filed by the OP was rejected. 8. As both parties have not submitted their disclosure affidavit of assets and liabilities, direction was given to them for immediate compliance. While the matter stood thus, the present petition dtd.25.7.2025 was filed by the OP u/s 9 of Family Courts Act. 9. It clearly emerges from the foregoing, discussion that the Opposite Party has been resorting to various dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings of this case. The repeated filing of multiple petitions by the Opposite Party appears to be a deliberate attempt to prolong the litigation, thereby causing undue harassment to the petitioner and obstructing the proper administration of justice. 10. In the present proceedings, the overall tone and tenor of the Opposite Party's averments indicate an attempt to coerce the petitioner into a settlement rather than to contest the matter on its merits. The OP has also leveled allegations against the petitioner involving her character and also expressed his verdict as to why the petitioner is not eligible for getting maintenance from the OP. Section 9 of Family Courts Act mandates that at the first instance the court shall try to persuade the parties for a mutual settlement. Here first instance means immediately after appearance of the opposite party after receiving summons. Page 4 of 5 The court is also empowered to adjourn the proceeding at any stage, whenever it sees there is a chance of settlement. In the present case at hand, there is absolutely no material which can show that there is any chance of settlement between the parties. Furthermore, both parties are in litigating terms since 2017. Within these long 8 years, none of the parties have ever Sopted for a settlement. In his petition the OP has prayed to refer this case for settlement. Allowing the Opposite Party's prayer would virtually put the present proceeding to an indefinite stagnation, thereby defeating the very purpose of expeditious adjudication. 11. In view of the above discussion this court is of the considered opinion that the petition filed by the Op has no merit and such petition is filed only to linger the proceeding and to harass the petitioner. Accordingly, any merit. petition stands rejected being devoid of any merit.” 4. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order so as to interfere with the same. 5. Perusal of the order reveals that the evidence of both parties has been recorded in the case but at the stage of argument, the case was being adjourned by the Petitioner. 6. In view of the submission of the Petitioner regarding the developments during pendency of the proceeding, the Petitioner is at liberty to file an application for adducing further evidence. If such p. 5 puspa application is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak in accordance with law and if any witness is summoned/ recalled, it will be at the cost of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party will be given the chance to cross-examine such witnesses. It is also observed that the Criminal Proceeding No.48 of 2017 shall be disposed of expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments as the case is pending since 2017. 7. With the above observation, the CRLMP is accordingly disposed of. 8. As the case has been disposed of without issuing notice to the Opposite Party, she is at liberty to file an application for modification/ recall of this order. (Savitri Ratho) Judge