[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Smt. Nidaganti Laxmi Rajyam vs Madan Mohan Patnaik .... Opposite Party on 3 December, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR CRLREV Nos.414 of 2016
Smt. Nidaganti Laxmi Rajyam .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
Madan Mohan Patnaik .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
And
CRLREV No.211 of 2016
Madan Mohan Patnaik .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Rath, Advocate
-Versus-
Smt. Nidaganti Laxmi Rajyam .... Opposite party
Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:26.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:03.12.2025
1.
Both the revisions are disposed of by the following
common judgment since it involves the same parties.
2. CRLREV No.414 of 2016: Instant revision is filed by the
petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the wife') assailing the
impugned decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada
in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2014 to the extent with regard
to monthly maintenance and compensation payable to her by
the opposite party (hence called as 'the husband') on the
grounds inter alia that the same is inadequate and hence,
liable to be interfered with and enhanced granting other
reliefs, she is entitled to.
3. CRLREV No.211 of 2016: Present revision is at the behest
of the husband assailing the decision in Criminal Appeal
No.23 of 2014 of the learned court below in a proceeding
initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'the
Act') and for having enhanced the maintenance to Rs.8000/-
per month payable to the wife as against the order of the
learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya-cum-J.M.F.C.,
Kolanara, Rayagada of Rs.6,000/- and also on account of
compensation of Rs.3 lac awarded against him on the
grounds stated therein.
4. In fact, the wife moved an application under Section 12 of
the Act seeking monetary relief and demanding orders under
Sections 19 and 22 of the Act from the husband registered as
M.C. No.36 of 2013 and it was disposed of by the learned
J.M.F.C. by order dated 30th April, 2014 allowing monthly
alimony of Rs.6,000/- payable to her on or before 10th day of
every month with effect from the date of such order and
further payment of Rs.3 lac towards compensation within the
stipulated period. Against the aforesaid order, both the parties
filed appeals under Section 29 of the Act and the learned
court below disposed of the same on 18th February, 2016
dismissing Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2014 and allowing
Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2014 preferred by the wife to the
extent of enhancing monthly maintenance to Rs.8,000/-
maintaining the order of compensation at Rs.3 lac. Being
aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 18 th February,
2016 in the appeals, the parties filed the revisions with
respective reliefs.
5. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the wife and Mr.
Rath, learned counsel for the husband.
6. According to the wife, she got married in 1975 with their
son born in 1976 and soon thereafter, found her husband
having extra-marital relationship, which was opposed but
every effort from her side was in vain. It is pleaded on record
that the husband instituted a suit in T.S. No.66 of 1986 in the
Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore for a divorce
decree, but it was dismissed on 26th November, 1991, against
which, Civil Misc. Appeal No.3 of 1993 was filed and was
dismissed on 30th September, 2996 and ultimately, confirmed
in S.A. No.337 of 1996 by this Court disposed of on 25th
August, 2008. According to the wife, she has not been looked
after by her husband for long and neglected and their son was
brought up like an orphan and that apart, the orders of the
Courts to pay maintenance were never obeyed and at last,
while working as a primary school teacher, retired from
service in 2009. It is further pleaded that her husband retired
as a Reader in Commerce from Bikramdev College, Jeypore
in 2006. The pleading on record is that the learned J.M.F.C.
allowed monthly alimony of Rs.6,000/- only though her
husband was receiving Rs.57,000/- as monthly pension after
6th Pay revision. It is claimed that the husband had also
received a lump sum amount of Rs.37,57,878/- as retirement
benefits on different heads. It has been alleged that the
husband did not provide regular maintenance to her, hence,
was compelled to file the application under Section 12 of the
Act. It is further alleged that the husband is receiving more
pension than the amount claimed and therefore, the learned
courts below fell into gross error in fixing maintenance @
Rs.6,000/- initially and later slightly enhanced to Rs.8,000/-
with a meagre sum of Rs.3 lac allowed as compensation. The
further plea is that such maintenance should have been
directed to be payable from the date of application filed and
not from the date of order i.e. 30th April, 2014, hence, the
impugned decision in M.C. No.36 of 2013 and Criminal
Appeal No.24 of 2014 is not legally tenable, hence, needs
further revision in the interest of justice.
7. On the other hand, the husband pleaded that the wife is not
entitled to maintenance or any compensation. It is pleaded
that the wife separated from him about 37 years back and
disturbance started in their conjugal life due to the latter's
suspectful attitude. It is alleged that the wife always aspired
for independent life and she was never inclined to stay with
her in-laws and since she insisted separate living and then,
joined as a school teacher in 1979, it was a miserable life for
him. It is pleaded that his wife is not entitled to maintenance
due to her above conduct and desertion and furthermore, the
amount of Rs.8,000/- towards monthly alimony even if
allowed is on the higher side and also compensation of Rs.3
lac, which is not at all justified, he being a retired employee
and having other responsibilities and expenses to be borne on
health and medication. Lastly, it is pleaded that even though
there has been deduction of 10% of pension, which has been
on the basis of an application of his wife, the said amount is
being deducted every month from the year 2006 and the same
would be around Rs.6 lac to Rs.7 lac and hence, under such
circumstances, further allowing maintenance of Rs.8,000/-
would be really burdensome including the compensation of
Rs.3 lac.
8. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
wife filed a memo and apprised the Court that the arrear
maintenance @ Rs.8,000/- per month till 13th November,
2024 stands at Rs.10,27,467/-. It is stated that besides the
payments of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.15,000/- on 18th March, 2016
and 19th October, 2016 received by the wife, the arrear
remains at Rs.8,97,467/- and if calculated till June, 2025, it
becomes Rs.9,58,000/-.
9. Undisputed facts are that the marriage between the parties
was solemnized in 1975 and a son was born to them in 1976
and thereafter, they got separated. According to the husband,
he and his wife reside separately from 1979, though, in
between, stayed for few days till 1982. It is made to reveal
from the record that the husband filed a divorce suit in 1986
and as earlier stated, it was dismissed on 26th November,
1996. It is further made to reveal that monthly maintenance
was allowed in the suit and the same was also challenged and
the said amount was revised thereafter. The decision in the
suit was challenged in appeal and finally, the second appeal
was dismissed in 2008 and a year after, the wife retired from
service on 30th November, 2009. After such retirement, the
application under Section 12 of the Act was filed in 2013 and
therein, the learned J.M.F.C. allowed monthly maintenance
of Rs.6,000/- stood modified in Criminal Appeal No.24 of
2014 and enhanced to Rs.8,000/- without disturbing the
compensation of Rs.3 lac. On the one hand, the challenge is
to the sum of monetary relief allowed against the husband
even questioning the entitlement and on the other hand, the
wife has raised objection to the quantum of alimony even
though enhanced with a plea that the same is relatively less
considering her social status.
10. Before the learned J.M.F.C., the parties adduced
evidence, oral and documentary. Some bank receipts were
marked as exhibits from the side of the wife besides medical
prescriptions. The salary statement of the husband is marked
as Ext.12 and a letter of the Special Treasury, Jeypore as
Ext.13 and on the other side, the husband proved receipts of
money orders as Exts. A/1 to A/7 and also cash receipts as
Ext. C/1, Ext.C.2 to Ext.C.5 besides medical reports i.e.
Ext.D.1 to D.4 and likewise, some medical prescriptions
marked as Ext. E/1 to E/3. From the evidence on record, it is
revealed that the wife was a teacher of a primary school and
the husband, a Reader retired many years back and are living
separately since long. The parties are having age related
medical issues as also revealed from the evidence. The
question is, whether, the maintenance allowed is justified and
if the amount fixed at Rs.8,000/- is reasonable? Such alimony
is permissible when objected by the husband challenging the
entitlement? The amount of compensation is also questioned
by the wife considering the pension of her husband and good
amount of retiral benefits received by him. The parties are
elderly persons and at present, are in their 70s. The demand
for maintenance is sought to be further enhanced besides the
compensation fixed by the learned courts below, which is to
be examined by this Court.
11. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the husband would submit
that the wife is not entitled to any such relief since separated
long before. It is contended that even assuming for the sake
of argument that alimony is permissible, in that case, the
decision on maintenance and compensation has not been
considered by both the learned courts below in accordance
with the decision of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha
and another AIR 2021 SC 569. It is also contended that in
absence of any domestic relationship between the parties, no
such order of maintenance should have been passed.
12. On the contrary, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the wife
submits that the maintenance is permissible even when the
parties lived separately. It is submitted that even a divorced
wife is entitled to maintenance and such other reliefs under
the Act and while stating so, he refers to a decision of the
Apex Court in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni Vrs. Atif Iqbal
Mansoori and another (2014) 10 SCC 736. It is further
contended that the conduct of the parties even prior to
commencement of the Act could be taken into account, while
dealing with application under the said Act demanding
monetary relief, etc. and in support of such contention, the
decision in V.D. Bhanot Vrs. Savita Bhanot (2012) 1 SCR
867 is placed reliance on. Lastly, while demanding that the
maintenance amount should be enhanced to Rs.25,000/- per
month, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the wife cited a case
law in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vrs. Rita Dey Chowdhury
Nee Nandy (2017) 3 SCR 356. It is contended that the
learned courts below did not consider the real life
predicament of the wife and suffering she has undergone
entire life and hence, the impugned decision is required to be
modified with a monetary compensation of Rs.20 lac
awarded to her besides payment of Rs.8 lac on the head of
medical expenses under Section 22 of the Act and
Rs.10,000/- per month towards residential order in terms of
Section 19(1)(f) of the Act.
13. In the case at hand, there has been no divorce decree in
favour of the husband, hence, the decision of the Apex Court
in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni (supra) is not relevant to be
considered. There has been a plea advanced from the side of
the wife as opposed to the claim of the other side for
considering the monetary relief and such other reliefs, she is
entitled to under the Act to be considered and appreciated
with reference to the husband's conduct. It is admitted that
the parties separated towards the end of 70s or in the early
part of 80s and till such time, it may be said that both lived
and led a conjugal life. To claim that there has been no
domestic relationship ever between the two as contended by
Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the husband is misconceived.
In fact, the expression 'domestic relationship' is defined
under Section 2(f) of the Act, which means, a relationship
between two persons, who live or have, at any point of time,
lived together in a shared household, when they are related by
consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the
nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living
together as a joint family. In the case of the parties herein,
after their marriage, both stayed under one roof for some
time, till their separation and therefore, even though, such
separation is more than 30 to 35 years old, it has to be held
that they had been in a domestic relationship having lived
together in a shared household. If the wife joined in service
few years after her marriage and had to live separately at the
work place does not mean that both never had a domestic
relationship in the context of the Act. In fact, in course of
hearing, it has not been seriously argued with any such plea
as to absence of domestic relationship between the parties.
Considering the above facts and the reason behind the
separation, it has to be concluded that till such time, both of
them separated, they had been in a domestic relationship.
14. As far as the maintenance demanded by the wife is
concerned, it has been allowed by the learned court below on
the premise that she had a reasonable excuse to stay separate
from the opposite party. The Court is not inclined to consider
and elaborately discuss the evidence on record regarding the
nature of relationship between the two and what led to their
separation after marriage, a fact in issue, which has been duly
taken cognizance of and reasonably appreciated by the
learned courts below. The only issue that remains to be
examined is over the claim of maintenance and compensation
and whether, it needs further enhancement with any other
entitlements in favour of wife as has been demanded.
15. According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the wife,
the opposite party should be directed to pay an amount
Rs.25,000/- per month towards monthly maintenance.
Furthermore, the demand on the head of compensation is
claimed at Rs.20 lac. The aggrieved wife is also claiming
Rs.8 lac on the head of medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- lac
towards residential order under Section 19 of the Act. The
learned Court below has considered the aspect of domestic
violence and the plea of the aggrieved wife and the fact that
the husband had instituted a suit demanding divorce on the
ground of desertion. As earlier discussed, the suit for divorce
was dismissed and ultimately confirmed in S.A. No.337 of
1996. In so far as evidence on record is concerned, Ext.12 is
the information supplied by the State Bank of India, Central
Pension Processing Centre, Bhubaneswar and the same
revealed that the husband received the basic pension of
Rs.12,069/- with T.I as applicable from October, 2011.
Besides an arrear of Rs.6,22,104/-, commuted value pension
of Rs.5,61,075/- has been paid to him on 20th December,
2011 with the pension reduced by Rs.4,470/- till the end of
2026. A copy of the pension payment order appended to
Ext.12 revealed that the pension of the opposite party to be
Rs.12,069/- from 1st July, 2006 to 30th June, 2016 after
deduction of 10% and such retention is as per G.O. No.21621
dated 17th May, 2007. Referring to the deduction at the rate of
10%, it is claimed by the wife that the pension of the opposite
party would be Rs.44,700/-. On the other hand, the claim of
the husband is that the pension is at Rs.10,000/- by the year
2013-14. Ext.13 is the information supplied by the Special
Treasury, Jeypore indicating therein that the opposite party
was paid Rs.28,540/- towards pension as on 19th March, 2011
and considering the same, the learned Court below held that
the claim of monthly pension at Rs.44,000/- is unacceptable.
It is a matter of record about the husband having received the
retirement benefits towards arrear and commuted value of
pension besides gratuity of Rs.5 lac. Considering the nature
of evidence admitted, the husband received pension close to
Rs.30,000/- by the year 2011. In fact, this Court had directed
the husband to produce pension papers by order dated 25th
July, 2025. Such a direction was in continuation of an earlier
order dated 10th November, 2022, however, it has not been
complied with. According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, for
such non-compliance, an adverse inference is to be drawn in
view of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act read with
Section 119 BNNS. It is not in denial that the wife had a
pension at Rs.9,000/- per month after retirement in 2009. It is
also not in denial that the wife is entitled to a proper and
decent living standard at par with her husband, which has
even been admitted by him. It is claimed that the husband
being a Reader with UGC scale, his revised pension would be
more than what is disclosed and therefore, the said fact
should have been taken judicial notice of while fixing the
amount of maintenance payable to the wife. The Court is
inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel that an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month is not just
and reasonable and it needs enhancement.
16. Referring to the decision in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury
(supra), it is claimed that the maintenance should be fixed at
25% of the income of the husband. If the pension of the
husband in the year 2011-12 was close to Rs.30,000/-, it must
have received revision thereafter and considering the fact that
the pension received would obviously be more than what it
was in 2012, the Court is of the humble view that the
maintenance payable to the wife should be assessed at
Rs.10,000/- a month. The Court is inclined to fix the pension
of the husband at Rs.40,000/- with the conclusion that it must
have received revision. Such is the view of the Court after
recording an adverse inference against the husband for
having not complied the order dated 25th July, 2025. If 25%
of the monthly pension is considered to be sum towards
maintenance, it becomes Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore,
with the above discussion, in the considered view of the
Court, the maintenance amount should be further enhanced
from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- having assessed the monthly
pension of the husband @ Rs.40,000/-.
17. As far as the arrear maintenance is concerned, according
to the Court, the husband is liable and should be directed to
pay the same and clear all the dues in lump sum in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case especially when
the parties are at their advanced stage of life. The memo filed
from the side of the wife with a calculation sheet on arrear
dues has gone unopposed. Since, it has not been challenged
from the side of the husband, it stands at Rs.9,58,000/- till
June, 2025 calculated @ Rs.8000/-. The Court is of the view
that such payment recalculated @ Rs.10,0000/- should be
cleared at one go or in two installments considering the fact
that the same is pending clearance for long. The Court is
inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel that the payment of monthly maintenance should be
on and from the date of the application filed under Section 12
of the Act. It is not that the wife abandoned any such relief of
interim alimony, hence, it was not justified on the part of the
learned courts below to direct the payment of maintenance
from the date of the original order. In fact, such an
application under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the wife
in 2013 and was allowed just a year after by order dated 30th
April, 2014 and therefore, there was no occasion as such or
too little a time in between for seeking interim maintenance
and therefore, any such alimony allowed in her favour is
payable with effect from the date of application filed and not
the order in M.C. No.36 of 2013.
18. As regards the residence order claimed at Rs.10,000/- a
month, the Court is of the view that the parties have become
old and living separately for quite a long time, hence, at this
distant point of time, it would not be proper to direct any such
payment on that account. Admittedly, the aggrieved wife is
having medical condition and receiving treatment on and off
and needs support. It is not revealed from the record whether
their son is having any independent income since he had
become major by the time the litigation started. In absence of
any such material on record, it has to be assumed that the
wife is all alone to look after herself and her son and
therefore, the husband should be directed to pay an additional
amount of Rs.3 lac to meet her medical and other expenses.
That apart, the husband received the retiral benefits but never
ever parted with or shared any amount out of the same with
the wife. No doubt, both the parties are independent and
having income but the wife retired as a school teacher with a
meagre amount of pension less than Rs.10,000/- by the time
of retirement, whereas, the pension of the husband is
reasonably better. In the considered view of the Court if such
additional payment is paid besides the compensation of Rs.3
lac, it would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice
considering the fact that the wife is living a life without any
real support. Thus, considering the evidence on record and
having a holistic approach to the case at hand and since
considerable time has elapsed in the meantime and the parties
are at their fag end of mortal life, it would be better if an
amount of Rs.10,000/- is allowed towards maintenance with a
direction to pay compensation of Rs.3 lac and an additional
sum for such amount to meet the medical expenses of the
wife besides clearing the arrear dues at the enhanced rate in
lump sum either at once or in two installments in a span of
three months and to that extent, the impugned judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2014 is required to be modified. In
other words, the Court is not inclined to accept the contention
of the husband and hence, as a necessary corollary, the plea
that the monthly maintenance and compensation not being
payable deserves to be outrightly rejected and accordingly, it
is ordered.
19. In the result, the revision petitions are disposed of. For
the reasons discussed hereinabove, CRLREV No.414 of 2016
is allowed to the extent indicated, whereas, CRLREV No.211
of 2016 stands dismissed thereby fixing the alimony @
Rs.10,000/- per month with effect from the date of
application filed under Section 12 of the Act besides Rs.3 lac
each on the head of compensation and medical expenses, etc.
over and above the arrear dues to be cleared with a payment
in lump sum or in two installments at the best. It is further
directed that the above direction shall be complied with at the
earliest preferably within a period of three months from
today.
20. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Alok
