CUTTACK, India, May 1 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on March 31:

1. The CRLMC has been filed challenging the order dated 05.03.2014 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia in G.R. Case No.344 of 2013 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'the IPC') read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the Petitioners and issuing summons to the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and Petitioner No.2 is his mother. Opposite Party No.2 is the informant in the case and was married to Petitioner No.1.

2. Notice to the Opposite Party No.2 had been issued vide order dated 02.04.2015. Office note dated 10.07.2015 indicates that postal A.D. was received from Opposite Party No.2 after personal service.

3. It appears that this case was thereafter dismissed for nonprosecution on 12.08.2022 on account non-appearance of the counsel for the Petitioners pursuant to order dated 12.10.2022 passed in CRLMA No. 219 of 2022, the CRLMC was restored to file. On 13.01.2023, this Court had directed for the personal appearance of the Petitioners and Opposite Party No.2 on hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the matter between the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 had been amicably settled and their marriage has been annulled by a decree of divorce on mutual consent. Perusal of the order-sheet and office notes indicate that thereafter notice could not be served on Opposite Party No.2.

4. Certified copy of the judgment dated 17.10.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada in MAT Suit No. 39/2015 has been filed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners and is available in the record.

5. From a perusal of the same, it is apparent that the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has been dissolved on mutual consent vide judgment dated 18.10.2015 in MAT Suit No. 39/2015 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Baripada. The parties are leading their separate lives.

6. This CRLMC is pending since 2015 and interim order staying further proceedings in G.R. Case No. 344 of 2013 is still in force. Notice was sufficient on the Opposite Party No.2 before the case was dismissed for default. Hence, without directing for issue of fresh notice on Opposite Party No.2, the matter is heard.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv0u9rzvWXXM1RlQr3ylm5WJ1TR7CoJwLIZxnZUCWgMlj&caseno=CRLMC/537/2026&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010113892026&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.