Prabodha Kumar Mishra vs Sujata Kumar Mishra & ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1439 Ori

Orissa High Court

Prabodha Kumar Mishra vs Sujata Kumar Mishra & ... Opposite ... on 18 July, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               RPFAM No.134 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 19(4) of the
   Family Courts Act, 1984).

   Prabodha Kumar Mishra             ...         Petitioner
                          -versus-

   Sujata Kumar Mishra &             ...   Opposite Parties
   another

   For Petitioner           : Mr. C.V. Bhushan, Advocate

   For Opposite Parties     : None

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:18.07.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This revision by the petitioner-husband

U/S. 19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sec.

438/442 of the BNSS seeks to challenge the impugned

order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Judge

Family Court, Nabarangpur in Criminal Proceeding No.

27 of 2024 so as to grant maintenance to OP-1-cum-

wife in an application U/S. 125 of the CrPC, but the

petitioner has no grievance with regard to direction of

the learned Judge Family Court, Nabarangpur by the

impugned order granting maintenance to OP No.2.

2. Mr.Chiranjiv Vidya Bhushan, learned

counsel for the petitioner who emphatically submits

that OP-wife has withdrawn the society of the husband

without any lawful excuse, but the learned Judge

Family Court, Nabarangpur has ignored to adjudicate

such point and erroneously directed payment of

maintenance to the OP-wife.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the

petitioner and on going through the records, it appears

that there is no dispute with regard to relationship

between the parties, but only the plea of the petitioner-

husband is the withdrawal of OP-wife from the society

of the husband without any lawful excuse. However, on

going through the impugned judgment, it appears that

the learned Judge Family Court, Nabarangpur has

considered that the petitioner-husband has not brought

on record any material or evidence to establish that the

OP-wife has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of

the husband without any lawful excuse. It is of course

true that the learned Judge Family Court, Nabarangpur

has observed in Paragraph-12 of the impugned order

that PW1 fails to say as to who was demanding which

articles as additional dowry as alleged by her and she

stated to have lodged an FIR against the OP(petitioner-

husband), but the same has not been submitted in the

proceeding for proper adjudication. True it is that the

wife has not produced the copy of the FIR, but that per

se does not establish the plea of the husband that the

wife voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the

husband without any lawful excuse. On the other hand,

it cannot be denied that the wife has lodged the FIR

against the petitioner-husband and in such FIR, she has

alleged about cruelty meted to her. Grant of

maintenance to wife is a social welfare legislation and

strict proof of evidence is not required and it is a mere

an enquiry of summary nature and if the wife

establishes the primary ingredients for grant of

maintenance, the Court should not hesitate to grant

maintenance.

4. In this case, on studied scrutiny of the

impugned order, this Court does not find any error

apparent in the impugned order to say that the wife

has voluntarily withdrawn from the society of the

husband without any lawful excuse and, therefore, the

plea as advanced by the petitioner merits no

consideration.

5. In the result, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th day of July, 2025/kishore

Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Jul-2025 10:34:06