IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No.86 of 2026 An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Shovan Kumar Sahoo …. Petitioner -versus-

Puspanjali Swain …. Opposite Party Advocates appeared in this case:

For Petitioner : Mr. Bibhu Prasad Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party :

CORAM:

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

JUDGMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing and Judgment : 4th February, 2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMP has been filed praying for a direction to the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar for concluding CMC No. 40 of 2022 within a period of 45 days by hearing it on a day to day basis, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

2. CMC No. 40 of 2022 had been filed by the wife - Opposite Party (in short “Opp. Party”) in Court of the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar against the husband – Petitioner (in short “Petitioner”) and his relatives under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the D.V. Act’) claiming relief under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the D.V. Act, 2005.

3. Pursuant to order dated 21.01.2026, the status report dated 28.01.2026 has been received from the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar where she has given details of the dates and purpose for which the case has been adjourned / posted. She also stated as follows:-

“2. Both the parties are filing multiple petitions on almost every date of adjournment and are also pressing more for disposal of the petition rather than for conclusion of evidence. Before disposal of one petition, another 2 to 3 petitions get added for consideration and the case gets lingered for disposal of the petitions. Hence filing of such multiple petitions is creating a lot hardship in further proceeding of this case and its speedy disposal.” ”

4. From the status report, it is apparent that file was transferred to the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar on 02.07.2025, when it was posted for cross-examination of the Opp. Party. Thereafter, except on 10.11.2025 and 13.01.2026 when the learned counsel for the Petitioner remained absent, the case has been adjourned at the instance of the Opp. Party or her learned Counsel.

SUBMISSION

5. Mr. Bibhu Prasad Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws my attention to under Section 12(5) read with Section 28(2) of the D.V. Act and submits that although statutes provides for disposal of application under Section 12(1) within 60 days of the first date of hearing, but the proceeding is pending on account of dilatory tactics of the Opp. Party after getting interim relief.

STATUTORY PROVISION

6. Sections 12 and 28 of the D.V. Act, 2005 are extracted below:-

“12. Application to Magistrate (1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer of any other on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:

Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.

(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:

Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance