Orissa High Court
Lili Das vs Parikhita Prusty .... Opposite Party on 21 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.290 of 2022
(In the matter of an application Under Section-19(4) of
Family Court Act read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973)
Lili Das .... Petitioner
-versus-
Parikhita Prusty .... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate
For Opposite : Mr. K.C.Kar, Advocate
Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:21.01.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This present revision by Petitioner-wife
seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated
06.05.2022 passed in Criminal Proceeding No. 205 of
2019 by which the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur
has directed the OP-husband to pay a sum of Rs.
5,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife towards
maintenance w.e.f 04.10.2019 in an application U/S.
125 Cr.P.C.
2. Heard, Mr. Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, learned
counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Kishore Chandra Kar,
learned counsel for the OP in the matter and perused
the record.
3. Admittedly, no affidavit of assets and
liabilities are filed by either of the parties to the
proceeding, but in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha and another;
(2021) 2 SCC 324, the Apex Court has issued a
mandatory guidelines in deciding the claim for
maintenance in matrimonial proceeding and
accordingly, all the Courts are required to follow the
said guidelines in letter and spirit, since 04.11.2020 on
which date the aforesaid celebrated judgment in
Rajnesh(supra) was delivered. In this premises, this
Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in Aditi
Vrs. Jitesh Sharma; (2023) SCC Online SC 1451,
wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-15 has held
thus:-
"15. Nothing is evident from the record or even
pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant at the time of hearing that
affidavits were filed by both the parties in
terms of judgment of this Court in
Rajnesh's case (supra), which was directed
to be communicated to all the High Courts for
further circulation to all the Judicial Officers for
awareness and implementation. The case in
hand is not in isolation. Even after
pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, this
Court is still coming across number of cases
decided by the courts below fixing
maintenance, either interim or final, without
their being any affidavit on record filed by the
parties. Apparently, the officers concerned
have failed to take notice of the guidelines
issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of
cases involving grant of maintenance.
Comprehensive guidelines were issued
pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among
courts when concurrent remedies for grant of
maintenance are available under the Special
Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, and Criteria for
determining quantum of maintenance, date
from which maintenance is to be awarded,
enforcement of orders of maintenance including
fixing payment of interim maintenance. As a
result, the litigation which should close at the
trial level is taken up to this Court and the
parties are forced to litigate."
4. The judgment in Rajnesh(supra) was
delivered on 04.11.2020 and thereby, the affidavit was
required to be submitted in terms of the aforesaid
judgment in all maintenance proceeding including
pending proceeding. In this case, the learned trial Court
by the impugned judgment has assessed the income of
the husband @ Rs. 44,000/- per month as his gross
salary, but granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the
maintenance of the wife. Had the parties been allowed
to file affidavit of assets and liabilities, the matter
would have been different and in that event, the Court
would have got a clear picture as to the requirement of
the Petitioner-wife and the liabilities of the OP-husband
and, accordingly, the trial Court would have decided the
quantum of maintenance. However, the learned trial
Court ignoring the guidelines issued in
Rajnesh(supra) has passed the impugned judgment
which is required to be set aside and the matter is
required to be adjudicated afresh in view of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in the decision as referred to
above. However, taking into account the factors
involved in this case and the status of the Petitioner-
wife, it would be just and proper to grant Rs. 5,000/-
per month to the present Petitioner-wife as an interim
maintenance till disposal of the main proceeding. After
disposal of the main proceeding on remand, the Court
has to calculate and adjust the arrear maintenance, but
at present, the OP-husband has to clear up/pay the
arrear @ Rs. 5,000/- per month w.e.f 04.10.2019 in
some installments to be fixed by the learned trial Court.
5. In the result, the revision stands allowed
on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order
as to costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment
dated 06.05.2022 passed in Criminal Proceeding No.
205 of 2019 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur
is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to
the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur for fresh
disposal in accordance with law.
6. It is, however, made clear that the learned
trial Court should adhere to the timeline as fixed in
Rajnesh(supra) for inviting the affidavit of assets and
liabilities from either of the parties and dispose of the
present case as early as possible by taking fresh
evidence, if required and see that the maintenance case
be disposed of within six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
A copy of this order be immediately sent to the
learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur for compliance.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 21st January, 2025/Priyajit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
