Orissa High Court
Shibajisuna vs Arunasuna on 1 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV NO. 355 OF 2016
ShibajiSuna .... Petitioner
Mr.P.K.Satapathy, Advocate
-versus-
ArunaSuna .... Opposite Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 01.02.2022
03 1. This matter is taken up by virtual mode
2. By way of this revision application, the petitioner assails the
judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarhin
Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2014 under the provision of
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act,2005.
3.The opposite party/wife here in this case, had filed an
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short, PWDV Act) praying
therein to pass a protection order under Section 18 and/or
residence order under Section 19 and /or to direct the petitioner
to pay monetary relief under Section 20 and/or to pass order
under Section 22 and/or to direct the petitioner to grant
compensation for damage under Section 22 and/or to pass such
interim orders as the Court deems just and proper under the Act.
However, the petition of opposite party/wife was allowed in part
with the observations thatthe petitioner was restrained from
subjecting the opposite party to Domestic Violence in any
manner, else he shall be liable as per law. The petitioner was
// 2 //
directed to provide residence to the opposite party in his
residential house. It was also directed that the petitioner shall not
be the reason of any disturbance in her stay or in the stay of her
two children in any manner or the petitioner shall provide
alternative accommodation for the wife opposite party if she
chooses to stay in any other place suitable to the economic
standard of the husband. The petitioner husband was directed to
provide monetary relief to the opposite party to the tune of
Rs.1000/- per month towards her maintenance and an amount of
Rs.1000/- per month towards the maintenance of their children
by the 1st week of each succeeding month from the date of
application. The arrear of the maintenance shall be paid by the
petitioner in 12 installments within one year from the date of the
order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegations as
made against him is false, fabricated and motivated. Inter alia he
took the plea that the opposite party/wife has got illicit relation
with one Manoj Patel and once they were caught red-handed by
him for which the matter was reported before the P.S. Sudargarh.
Further the opposite party is serving as Sweeper in the Govt.
Hospital and receiving monthly salary from the Govt. exchequer
to maintain herself as well as her children. Hence, the order
passed by the learned lower court is not tenable in the eye of law
and liable to be set aside.
5. On perusal of the entire case record including the orders of
the both the courts below, this Court is of the considered view
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
that the impugned order passed by the learned court directing
the petitioner to pay Rs.2000/- per month is not at all a burden
and stringency upon the petitioner. Therefore, no grounds are
there to interfere with the impugned order.
6. In view of the above, the CRLREV is dismissed.
7.As the restrictions due to resurgence of Covid-19 are
continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout
of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with
certified copy, subject to attestation by the Advocate
concerned with his/her seal, in the manner prescribed vide
Court's Office Order dated 7th January, 2022.
.
(S.K.Panigrahi)
Judge
LB
