Orissa High Court
Suchismita Mohapatra vs Manmath Kumar Routray on 7 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 1434 of 2023
Suchismita Mohapatra .... Petitioner
Mr. B. K. Sharma, Advocate
-versus-
Manmath Kumar Routray .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 07.11.2023
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the indulgence of
this Court to modify the order dated 24.06.2023 under Annexure-4 in
awarding the interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.1 lakh in favour of
the Petitioner from the date of the application i.e. 23.06.2023.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to
the matrimonial discord, the Petitioner moved an application before the
learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar under Section 125 of CrPC
wherein the learned court in an interim application pleased to pass an
order directing the Opposite Party-husband to pay of sum of
Rs.20,000/- which is payable to the Petitioner per month towards her
interim maintenance from the date of order i.e. 24.06.2023 till final
disposal on or before 10th day of each succeeding month in the manner
described therein. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the
order passed by the learned court is not in consonance with the
mandate issued by the Apex Court in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.
// 2 //
4. Since the limited question involved in the application that does not
relate to the fact but on the point of law, this court adverts to dispose of
the application at the stage of admission.
5. In the matter of Jaminiben Hirenbhai Vyas & another v. Hirenbhai
Rameshchandra Vyas and another in Criminal Appeal No.2435 of
2014 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3345 of 2023, the Supreme Court
while considering an appeal made by the wife and her minor daughter
wherein the Apex Court observed as under:-
"1. Every final order issued under Section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 shall include points for
determination, the decisions thereon, and the reasons for
such decision. To put it another way, Sections 125 and
354 (6) of the Code of 1973 must be read together.
Section 125 of the CrPC implies that the Court should
consider making the maintenance order effective from any
of the two dates (the date of the order or the date of the
application). It is neither appropriate nor desirable that a
Court simply states that maintenance should be paid from
either the date of the order or the date of the application in
matters of maintenance.
The Apex Court had noted that the High Court had
offered no reason why maintenance should not be granted
from the date of the application. In the light of the fact
that the appellant worked before marriage but not
throughout her marriage, the Apex Court concluded that
the circumstances eminently warranted the grant of
maintenance with effect from the date of the application
as there was no record of her earnings throughout the time
the couple was married. Hence, the Order of the High
Court was reversed by the Supreme Court in the present
case as it held that the amount of maintenance should be
paid to the appellant from the date of the application for
maintenance itself."
6. In the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324
the Apex Court held as follows:-
"VI Final Directions In view of the foregoing discussion
as contained in Part B - I to V of this judgment, we deem
it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise
// 3 //
of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India:
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction To overcome the
issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting
orders being passed in different proceedings, it has
become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that
there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family
Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the
country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by
a party under different statutes, the Court would consider
an adjustment or set- off, of the amount awarded in the
previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any
further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent
proceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the
previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the
subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s
requires any modification or variation, it would be
required to be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance The Affidavit of
Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as
Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be
applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all
maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings
before the concerned Family Court / District Court /
Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the
country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to
an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria
enumerated in Part B - III of the judgment.
The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the
concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider
any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance
in the facts and circumstances of a case.
// 4 //
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded We
make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be
awarded from the date of filing the application for
maintenance, as held in Part B - IV above.
(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance For
enforcement / execution of orders of maintenance, it is
directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be
enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of
Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance
may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per
the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51,
55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI."
7. In view of the principles enunciated by the Apex court as above
there is nothing to dispute that the order directing interim
maintenance has to be from the date of application. While not
interfering with the impugned order dated 24.06.2023, therefore, it
is directed that the court below shall issue appropriate order in
modification of the order passed by it dated 24.06.2023 directing
the Opp. Party husband to pay the interim maintenance from the
date of application i.e. 23.10.2019. The other conditions in the
impugned order passed by the learned court stands confirmed.
8. With the above modification, the CRLMP stands allowed.
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Signature AKPradhan
Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Sr. Steno
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 09-Nov-2023 20:03:15
