ARUNA KAR Vs. SARAT DASH ALIAS NACHHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short, the 'Act'), order of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack rejecting an application for restoration of petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the 'Code') is assailed.

(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspects is necessary for disposal of the appeal which involves a ticklish question of law, fact situation as described by the appellant runs as follows :

(3.) The application was resisted by respondent on the ground that reasons indicated for non-appearance are not factually correct. Learned Judge, Family Court rejected the application though he held that he had power to restore the petition by exercise of inherent powers. Reliance was placed for such view on a decision of this Court in Rekha Jena v. Manoranjan Jena, ILR 1963 Cuttack 556. Learned counsel for appellant in support of appeal has submitted that the approach of learned Judge, Family Court is erroneous, Considering the fact that appellant has been ventilating her grievance since about two decades, the inference that there was no justifiable reason for her absence or that she was not vigilant is not tenable in law. Learned counsel for respondent however, submitted that learned Judge, Family Court had no power of restoration and he was not correct in his conclusion that he had power to restore. It is, however, submitted that rejection has been rightly done.