Orissa High Court
Binay Kumar Sahani vs Meera Sahani & Ors. .... Opposite Party ... on 14 February, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.493 of 2023
(From the judgment dated 10.08.2023, passed by the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, in Crl. Appeal No. 34 of 2021,
modifying the order dated 27.10.2021, passed by the learned J.M.F.C
Rourkela, in D.V. Misc. Case No.243 of 2021).
Binay Kumar Sahani .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
Meera Sahani & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Adv.
-versus-
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Anita Das, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-03.02.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-14.02.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision challenging the order
dated 10.08.2023, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Rourkela in Crl. Appeal No. 34 of 2021, modifying the order dated
27.10.2021, passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Rourkela, in D.V. Misc. Case
No. 243 of 2021, enhancing the monthly maintenance from Rs. 20,000/-
pg. 1
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
to Rs. 25,000/- and granting an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards
the education expenses of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this CRLREV are as follows:
i. The petitioner is a lecturer in History at Hrushikesh Ray Higher
Secondary School, Chhend, Rourkela. His wife, Opposite Party No. 1,
works as a beautician. Their marriage was solemnized on 23.04.1995,
and after their marriage, both the parties have continued to stay
together at Rourkela till 06.05.2020. They have two daughters, Opposite
Parties Nos. 2 and 3.
ii. Opposite Party No. 1, along with Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3, filed
Criminal Misc. Case No. 243 of 2021 under Section 12 of the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the SDJM, Panposh,
Rourkela alleging that they have no independent source of income and
are unable to maintain themselves and, therefore, should receive
maintenance from the petitioner.
iii. The petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that there was a valid
marriage between himself and the Opposite Party No.1 but he has not
committed any act of domestic violence but he has unnecessarily been
subjected to mental torture by the Opposite Party No.1 by staying
separately from him.
iv. During the pendency of the Criminal Misc. Case No. 243 of 2021,
Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under Section 23 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking interim
pg. 2
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
maintenance. Upon considering the application, the J.M.F.C Rourkela
vide order dated 27.10.2021, directed the petitioner to pay interim
maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month towards basic necessities from
30.06.2021, the date on which the application for interim maintenance
was filed.
v. In compliance with the order dated 27.10.2021 passed by the J.M.F.C.,
Rourkela, the petitioner has been paying the interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.1.
vi. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3 filed Criminal Appeal
No.34 of 2021 under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Rourkela, challenging the interim maintenance order.
vii. The 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, allowed the appeal,
modifying the interim maintenance amount by directing the petitioner
to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month instead of Rs. 20,000/-, along with an
additional sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards the education
expenses of the Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3.
viii. Aggrieved by this enhancement of interim maintenance, the petitioner
has approached this Court seeking its intervention.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
pg. 3
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
i. The petitioner submitted that the judgment of the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, which mechanically enhanced the interim
maintenance from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 25,000/- per month and further
directed the payment of an additional sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month
towards the education expenses of Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and 3, is
without basis, contrary to the weight of evidence, hence, it is liable to be
quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 27.10.2021, passed by the learned
J.M.F.C., Rourkela, in Criminal Misc. Case. Case No. 243 of 2021, is
liable to be restored.
ii. It is well settled in law that when the trial court has rendered findings
based on an appreciation of evidence and documents, the appellate
court should not interfere with such findings unless it is established that
they are unsupported by evidence or suffer from perversity. In the
present case, the learned J.M.F.C., Rourkela, thoroughly examined the
documents and recorded findings accordingly. The 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge ought not to have disturbed or altered these findings
without bringing any new material on record.
iii. The petitioner demonstrated his financial position before the learned
J.M.F.C., Rourkela, by filing an affidavit of assets and liabilities, which
was duly accepted by the court. It was established that he is employed
as a Lecturer in History at Hrushikesh Ray Higher Secondary School,
Chhend, Rourkela, with a monthly income of Rs. 77,000/-. On the other
hand, Opposite Party No. 1 runs a beauty parlor and earns about
Rs.30,000/- per month. In light of these facts, the learned J.M.F.C.,
pg. 4
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
Rourkela, rightly directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month
towards the basic necessities of the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 3. This
determination ought not to have been disturbed by the 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, who enhanced the amount to Rs. 35,000/- based on mere
presumption.
iv. This Court, vide order dated 29.09.2023, passed an interim order
directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/- per month with effect
from 30.06.2021 until the end of September 2023. The period from
30.06.2021 to September 2023 covers 27 months, during which the
petitioner had been paying Rs. 20,000/- per month. Consequently, the
arrears amounted to Rs. 1,85,000/-, which has already been cleared by
the petitioner through Cheque No. 326837 for Rs. 1,85,000/-, deposited
in the SBI account of Opposite Party No. 1. Accordingly, no arrears
remain outstanding.
v. With regard to the payments from October 2023 to April 2024, covering
a period of seven months, the petitioner has been regularly paying Rs.
25,000/- per month through account payee cheques deposited in the SBI
account of Opposite Party No. 1. Accordingly, no arrear is pending.
vi. During the pendency of this Revision Petition, the Opposite Party No. 2,
the elder daughter of the Opposite Party No. 1 and the petitioner, has
been selected for the post of Junior Assistant in the office of the Sub-
Collector, Panposh, with effect from 19.06.2024. Additionally, the
Opposite Party No. 3, the younger daughter, has been pursuing a +3
Arts degree with Education Honours at Government Autonomous
pg. 5
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
College, Panposh, Rourkela since 2022. In view of these developments,
the grant of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards their education expenses is
not justified.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the following submissions in support of their contentions:
i. The impugned judgment passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge is well-reasoned, having duly considered all relevant aspects
while enhancing the interim maintenance. The direction to pay Rs.
10,000/- towards the education expenses of Opposite Parties Nos. 2 and
3 is justified in light of their financial requirements.
ii. The RTI information bearing No. 352/HRM/2023, dated 14.03.2023,
issued by the Public Information Officer of Hrushikesh Ray Higher
Secondary School, Chhend, Rourkela, contains the salary slips of the
petitioner for December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023. These
documents reflect a progressive increase in salary, with the gross salary
rising from Rs. 1,20,000/- in December 2022 to Rs. 1,24,200/- in January
and February 2023. The net salary for these months stood at Rs. 84,000/-,
Rs. 88,400/-, and Rs. 1,11,000/- respectively. Notably, while passing the
order dated 27.10.2021, the learned J.M.F.C., Rourkela, failed to consider
the petitioner's gross salary of Rs. 99,333/- as reflected in the salary slip
for June 2021. Moreover, no amount was awarded towards the
educational expenses of the Opposite parties, necessitating a challenge
to the said order. The Appellate Court has duly taken into account the
pg. 6
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
updated salary details and financial capacity of the petitioner while
granting enhanced maintenance.
iii. In 2019, the Opposite Party No. 1 availed a loan under the PMEGP
Scheme from the Bank of Baroda to establish a beauty parlour.
However, due to illness, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the academic
responsibilities of her daughters, she was unable to continue operating
the business, which resulted in difficulties in repaying the loan.
Consequently, in 2023, the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat,
SNG, issued four notices under Pre-Litigation Case Nos. 10235/2023,
10236/2023, 10237/2023, and 10238/2023.
iv. The Opposite Party No. 2 is completing her postgraduate studies while
preparing for competitive examinations to secure a government job,
while Opposite Party No. 3 is pursuing an undergraduate degree in
Education Honours at Government Autonomous College, Panposh,
Rourkela. The burden of educational expenses, therefore, persists.
Additionally, Opposite Party No. 1 is suffering from Bell's Palsy (Lt)
and requires continuous medical treatment, further constraining her
financial capacity.
v. The petitioner resides with his father, a retired employee of Rourkela
Steel Plant who receives a pension and possesses a medical card that
entitles him to free medical treatment at IGH, Rourkela. Given these
circumstances, it is evident that the petitioner has no financial
dependency apart from the present Opposite Parties.
pg. 7
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
vi. Considering the rising cost of essential commodities and the financial
needs of the Opposite Parties, the grant of interim maintenance of Rs.
25,000/-, along with Rs. 10,000/- towards educational expenses, is
reasonable and warranted.
vii. The petitioner has repeatedly failed to comply with the order directing
payment of interim maintenance by the 10th of every month. As a result,
the respondents, including the petitioner's daughters, have suffered a
lot due to non-payment of maintenance. Due to the non-compliance of
the order dated 29.09.2023 passed in I.A. No. 684 of 2023, the petitioner
has the outstanding arrear of Rs.1,95,000/ to pay the Opposite Parties.
IV. APPELLATE COURT'S JUDGMENT:
5. The Appellate Court, upon perusal of the record of the lower court,
found that the petitioner was receiving a net salary of Rs. 82,600/- per
month at the time of the interim order passed in October 2021.
However, salary slips obtained through an RTI application revealed
that by December 2022, January 2023, and February 2023, the
petitioner's gross salary had increased to Rs. 1,20,000/- per month, with
a net salary exceeding Rs. 84,000/- in December 2022 and January 2023,
and Rs. 1,11,000/- in February 2023. The court further noted that the
petitioner's father is a pensioner with a medical card, allowing him to
receive treatment, and thus, the petitioner has no other dependents
apart from his wife and daughters.
6. Taking into consideration the financial burden on the Opposite Party
No.1, who was solely handling the maintenance and education of her
pg. 8
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
two daughters, aged approximately 17 and 25 years, the Appellate
Court also accounted for the medical treatment she is undergoing at
IGH, Rourkela, and AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, as substantiated by the
documents filed on record. The contention raised by the petitioner that
he had been regularly paying the maintenance amount was also noted.
7. Upon evaluating the overall facts and circumstances, the Appellate
Court found that the order of the lower court directing payment of Rs.
20,000/- per month towards maintenance, was inadequate and
insufficient to meet the day-to-day expenses of the Opposite Parties,
thereby warranting interference. Consequently, the appeal was allowed,
and the respondent was directed to pay an enhanced interim
maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month along with an additional Rs.
10,000/- per month towards the educational expenses of the daughters,
effective from the date of filing of the petition. Furthermore, the
respondent was directed to ensure payment of these amounts by the
10th of each calendar month and was prohibited from engaging in any
act of domestic violence against the Opposite Parties.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence
on record.
9. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is
beneficial legislation designed to provide immediate relief and
protection to victims of domestic violence. The grant of interim
maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
pg. 9
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
Act, 2005 serves to address the urgent financial needs of the aggrieved
person and her children.
10. Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, empowers a Magistrate hearing an application under Section 12 to
direct the payment of monetary relief to compensate for expenses
incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and her children
due to domestic violence. The provision is reproduced hereinunder:
"20. Monetary reliefs
(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of
section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay
monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses
suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved
person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may
include, but not limited to,
(a) the loss of earnings;
(b) the medical expenses;
(c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal
of any property from the control of the aggrieved person; and
(d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her
children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an
order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the
time being in force.
(2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be
adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard
of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed.
(3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an
appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of
maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may
require.
(4) ...
(5) ...
pg. 10
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
(6) " (emphasis supplied)
11. It is well-established that while there is no rigid formula for
determining interim maintenance, courts must consider various factors
to arrive at a fair and just quantum of maintenance.
12. In order to clarify such issue, the Supreme Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal
v. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors.1, has succinctly observed:
"8. .... No set formula can be laid for fixing the amount of
maintenance. It has, in the very nature of things, to depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. Some scope for
leverage can, however, be always there. The court has to
consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the
capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable
expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged
under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or
deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife
should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort
considering her status and the mode of life she was used to
when she lived with her husband and also that she does not
feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same
time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or
extortionate..."
13. In a similar vein, Rajnesh v. Neha,2, the Supreme Court elaborated on
the criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, observing there is
no straitjacket formula for such computation. The factors which would
weigh with the Court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable
needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is
educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any
independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to
1997 (7) SCC 7.
(2021) 2 SCC 324.
pg. 11
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was
employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the
subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice
her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing,
and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of
litigation for a non-working wife. Further, certain additional factors
were also considered relevant such as age and employment of parties,
right to residence, if the wife has a source of income, maintenance of
minor children, and serious disability or ill health of a spouse, child or
dependent relative.
14. This Court further finds it pertinent to note that its revisional
jurisdiction is limited and may be exercised only in cases where the
impugned order suffers from manifest illegality, is unsupported by
evidence, disregards material facts, or reflects an arbitrary or perverse
exercise of judicial discretion.
15. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander3, the Supreme Court highlighted
the scope of revision under Sections 397 CrPC, as reproduced
hereinunder:
"12. ... Section 397 of the Code vests the court with the power
to call for and examine the records of an inferior court for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of
any proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it
(2012) 9 SCC 460.
pg. 12
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders,
which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration
and appear to be in accordance with law. If one looks into the
various judgments of this Court, it emerges that the revisional
jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under
challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with
the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no
evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive
classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be
determined on its own merits.
13.Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional
jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and
cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt
restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or
interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to
injustice ex facie..." (emphasis supplied)
16. Similarly, in K. Ravi v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.4, the Supreme Court
reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397
Cr.P.C, elucidating that such jurisdiction is limited to gross
irregularities and does not extend to interlocutory orders.
17. A perusal of the impugned order dated 10.08.2023, passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, modifying the order
dated 27.10.2021 of the learned J.M.F.C., Rourkela in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 243 of 2021, reveals that due consideration was given to the
affidavits of assets and liabilities submitted by both parties. The
petitioner's salary slips for December 2022, January 2023, and February
Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2024
pg. 13
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
2023 were examined to determine his updated average monthly income.
It was also duly noted that the petitioner's father is a pensioner and,
therefore, not financially dependent on him. It was further observed
that apart from his wife and daughters, the petitioner, has no other
dependents or any financial obligation.
18. Recognizing the financial strain on Opposite Party No.1, who alone
bears the responsibility for the maintenance and education of her two
daughters, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela also
took into account her ongoing medical treatment at IGH, Rourkela, and
AIIMS, Bhubaneswar, as substantiated by the documents on record.
Upon assessing the overall circumstances, the 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Rourkela arrived at the conclusion that the lower court's
direction to pay Rs. 20,000/- per month was insufficient to meet the day-
to-day expenses of the Opposite Parties, thereby warranting
interference.
19. Upon careful scrutiny of the record and the submissions advanced by
the parties, this Court finds no infirmity, legal or factual, in the
impugned order warranting interference. It is well settled that
revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC is limited in scope and
may be exercised only to correct a patent defect, an error of jurisdiction,
or a manifest illegality. Merely because a different view is possible is
not a ground for interference unless the order is perverse, contrary to
law, or unsupported by material evidence. In the present case, the
petitioner has failed to demonstrate any well-founded error justifying
pg. 14
Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2025 17:31:36
this Court's intervention. Accordingly, no ground for interference is
made out.
20. As regards the contention that maintenance and educational expenses
should be reduced on the ground that the elder daughter has secured
employment, it is pertinent to note that the financial requirements of the
younger daughter, who is continuing her college education, remain
unchanged. The mere fact that one daughter has started earning does
not absolve the petitioner of his continuing obligation to provide for the
younger daughter's education, which is an essential necessity. Since the
burden of educational expenses persists, this Court finds no cogent
reason to interfere with the impugned order on this ground.
21. CONCLUSION:
22. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no merit in the present
Revision Petition. The order/judgment passed by the learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela in Crl. Appeal No.34 of 2021, does
not warrant interference.
23. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
24. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 14th February, 2025/
pg. 15
