Arasmika Sahu vs Tanmay Kumar Sahu @ Tanmay
2021 Latest Caselaw 12602 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        W.P.(C) No.9067 of 2016
                         (Through hybrid mode)

        Arasmika Sahu                        ....            Petitioner

                                                Mr. M.Das, Advocate
                                  -versus-

        Tanmay Kumar Sahu @ Tanmay
                                             ....       Opposite Party
                                                                None


                 CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                 ORDER

07.12.2021 Order No.

06. 1. Mr.Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner wife and submits, impugned is order dated 27th August, 2015 made by the Family Court, Sambalpur in her petition under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He submits, his client gave evidence by affidavit and was cross- examined. She produced documentary evidence of her husband getting net salary of Rs.38,801/- for month of June, 2015. Opposite party husband did not examine himself nor any other witness. In the circumstances there was material irregularity and illegality in impugned order of awarding only Rs.4000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

// 2 //

2. He submits, by judgment dated 27th January, 2021, learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur modified order dated 13th February, 2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sambalpur in Misc. Case no.131 of 2016, filed by his client under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The judgment was passed in appeal preferred by opposite party husband. On query from Court he submits, the domestic violence case was filed by his client by petition verified on 10th May, 2016.

3. Impugned order was passed in I.A. no.06 of 2014 arising out of C.P. no.65 of 2014. Petitioner obtained order of interim maintenance but being aggrieved has approached this Court for enhancement, on submissions recorded above. It transpires that she, thereafter, in year 2016 approached the Magistrate under section 12 of the 2005 Act, seeking orders of maintenance and compensation under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. Section 26 in the 2005 Act says that any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil, family or criminal Court, affecting the aggrieved person. Section 36 says that provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.

4. In this case petitioner had approached the civil Court first and thereafter she invoked provisions of 2005 Act and also obtained similar orders of maintenance and compensation. Said order passed by the Magistrate stood modified in giving partial relief to opposite party husband. In the circumstances, this Court does not think fit to interfere on the ground of material

// 3 //

irregularity or illegality, as submitted on behalf of petitioner wife since, she has obtained, in addition to relief available under the 1955 Act, relief under the 2005 Act.

5. On above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge RKS