Sunanda Sahu vs Ashish Kumar Sahu
2023 Latest Caselaw 3164 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 5 OF 2017
                 Sunanda Sahu                           ....      Petitioner
                                           Mr. Pradip Kumar Ray, Advocate

                                          -versus-
                 Ashish Kumar Sahu                       ....    Opp. Party
                                                                      None

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            11.04.2023
   3.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 25th November, 2016 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No.159 of 2014 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- per month to the Petitioner from the date of the order.

3. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that both the quantum of maintenance as well as effective date of payment of the same are under challenge in this RPFAM. After making a lengthy argument, Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, even if, the quantum of maintenance has been determined on the basis of materials on record, but learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar erred in law in directing the Opposite Party to pay the maintenance from the date of the order. In view of the provision under Section 125(2) Cr.P.C. as well as the ratio decided in the case of Rajnesh -v- Neha and another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the date of filing of the application under

// 2 //

Section 125 Cr.P.C unless the Court records good reason for payment of maintenance from the date of the order. In the instant case, no reason has been assigned by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for awarding maintenance from the date of the order. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled to maintenance from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. He, therefore, prays for modification of the impugned order under Annexure-3 to that extent.

4. Although the Opposite Party is represented though learned counsel, but none appears on his behalf at the time of call.

5. Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner and the ratio decided in Rajnesh (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

6. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure-3 is modified to the extent directing the Opposite Party to pay maintenance @ Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) per month to the Petitioner from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

7. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order under Annexure-3, the RPFAM is disposed of.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge