Orissa High Court
Prabhudatta Panda vs Madhusmita Palita And Another on 31 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO.15 of 2020
Prabhudatta Panda .... Petitioner
Mr.S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Madhusmita Palita and another .... Opp. Parties
Md. G. Madani, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 31.10.2022
7. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2019
(Annexure-3) passed in Criminal Proceeding No.22 of 2017 is
under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby learned Judge, Family
Court, Bhadrak, directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.2,500/- per
month to Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to
Opposite Party No.2 as maintenance with effect from the date of
filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., i.e., 3rd
February, 2017.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that relationship between the parties is not disputed. Along with
Criminal Proceeding No.22 of 2017, the Opposite Party No.1
had also filed CP No.16 of 2017 for dissolution of marriage with
the present Petitioner. The said Civil Proceeding was disposed
of by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and
Opposite Party No.1 by a decree of divorce and the Opposite
Party No.1 has been granted permanent alimony of Rs.1.50
lakh. In spite of the same, the Opposite Parties pursued with the
// 2 //
Criminal Proceeding No.22 of 2017 filed under Section 125
Cr.P.C. and the impugned order has been passed.
4. It is his submission that once the Opposite Party No.1
has received the permanent alimony of Rs.1.50 lakh, she has to
show that she does not have sufficient income to maintain her
and her child to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C..
That being absent in the instant case, learned Judge, Family
Court, Bhadrak has committed error in passing the impugned
order.
5. Mr. Madani, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.1,
on the other hand, submits that law is well-settled that a
divorced whife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. The Petitioner, who denies maintenance to his divorced
wife and child, has to show sufficient reasons for the same. In
absence of any sufficient reason to that effect learned Judge
Family Court has committed no error in passing the impugned
order.
6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of record, it appears that before disposal
of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petition for
dissolution of marriage between the Petitioner and Opposite
party No.1 was taken up and disposed of by dissolving the
marriage by a decree of divorce by granting permanent alimony
of Rs.1.50 to the Opposite Party No.1. That itself does not
disentitle her (Opposite Party No.1) to receive maintenance
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Law is well-settled that a divorced
wife is also entitled to maintenance. When the Petitioner takes
ground that Opposite Parties are not entitled to any maintenance
// 3 //
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. they have to justify their case.
Although a ground was taken before the Family Court to the
effect that Opposite party No.1 has received a sum of Rs.1.50
lakh towards permanent alimony, but no specific plea to the
effect that the Opposite Party No.1 is not entitled to receive any
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as she has received the
permanent alimony, was raised by the Petitioner. As such, there
was no occasion on the part of the learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhadrak to discuss the same. Therefore, I find no infirmity in
the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit,
stands dismissed.
8. Interim order dated 25th January, 2021 passed in IA
No.22 of 2020 stands vacated.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
