Asit Kumar Mohanta & Others vs Aradhna Mohanta & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 8385 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                           CRLREV NO.376 OF 2023
            Asit Kumar Mohanta & Others           ....          Petitioners,
                                                Dr. B.K. Mishra, Advocate
                                  -versus-
            Aradhna Mohanta & Another              ....     Opposite Parties,
                                                                    -------
                      CORAM:
                     MR. JUSTICE D.DASH
                                     ORDER

Order No.                           01.08.2023
   01.      1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement
            (virtual/physical) mode.

2. The Petitioners by filing this Revision has called in question the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2023.

By the said order, the Appellate Court while dismissing the Appeal filed by the present Petitioners (Petitioner No.1- husband & Others) has confirmed the order dated 16.02.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Rairangpur in CMC No.56 of 2022 in the matter of an application under section-23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the PWDV Act' ).

The Trial Court having granted monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner No.1(husband) to the Opposite Party No.1(wife) from the date of filing of the application, the Appellate Court has refused to interfere with the same.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Courts below having not recorded the finding as regards the

// 2 //

domestic violence are not right in granting the maintenance per month, which also has not been indicated by the Courts below to be interim. He further submits that on the face of the specific plea has been taken by the Petitioner No.1 (husband) that the Opposite Party No.1 (wife) had left the matrimonial home on her own volition and this Petitioner No.1(husband) is in no way responsible for the same the quantum of maintenance awarded is highly excessive.

4. Keeping in view the submissions made, I have carefully read the orders passed by the Courts below. The Opposite Party No.1(wife) during pendency of the main proceeding under the PWDV Act filed an application for grant of maintenance under section-23 of the said Act which is the provision standing to the aid of the Petitioner No.1 (husband) for grant of necessary relief/s during pendency of the original proceeding. The Petitioner in his objection appears to have taken divergent pleas to thwart the claim of maintenance as advanced by the Opposite Party No.1(wife). At one stage, when it is stated that the marriage is void, the very next moment, it is said that the Opposite Party No.1(wife) has voluntarily left the company of the Petitioner No.1(husband).

In view of such contradictory pleas, when the Courts below have concurrently found the net salary of the Petitioner No.1(husband) to be is Rs.1,00,890/- per month and when admittedly, the Petitioner No.1(husband) has not made any provision for maintenance of the Opposite Party No.1(wife) despite their separate stay; the grant of maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1 (wife) appears to be quite

// 3 //

reasonable; since it is only during the pendency of the proceeding in order to meet the exigencies.

For all the aforesaid, this Court finds that the Revision does not merit admission. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

(D. Dash) Judge.

Narayan

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: NARAYAN HO Designation: Peresonal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 03-Aug-2023 11:35:29