Orissa High Court
Tapan Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Another .... ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.259 of 2023
Tapan Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. N.C. Rout, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Opposite parties
Mr. S. Behera, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
01.07.2025
Order No.
02. 1. Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Behera, learned AGA for the State appearing for opposite
party No.1.
2. Notice to opposite party No.2 is dispensed with as the
matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.
3. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned judgment dated 7th December, 2022 passed in
connection with Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2022 by learned 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack confirming the order of
interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2025 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the D.V. Act') on the grounds stated therein.
4. A delay of 60 days is reported as per the SR.
5. No I.A. is filed seeking condonation of delay which has
taken place in filing of the revision. Mr. Rout, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the revision may be disposed of
upon merit condoning any such delay in the interest of justice.
It is further submitted that the defect as pointed by the SR may
also be ignored to facilitate disposal of the revision according
to law.
6. Recorded the objection of Mr. Behera, learned AGA for
the State-opposite party No.1.
7. The proceeding under Section 23 of the D.V. Act is of
the year 2019 disposed of by learned Civil Judge, Junior
Division-cum-JMFC, Niali as per Annexure-5 directing the
petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- to the
wife, namely, opposite party No.2 and the same stood
confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2022 videAnnexure-6.
8. Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the
respective parties, this Court is of the humble view that the
proceeding being one under the D.V. Act in terms of Section 23
thereof in relation to grant of interim maintenance, even
though, there has been delay of 60 days in filing the revision,
instead of inviting any objection to the same particularly from
opposite party No.2 and for disposal of the same on merit, such
delay is required to be condoned accepting the explanation
offered by the petitioner as the same would rather serve the
purpose and meet the ends of justice in order to facilitate early
disposal. The Court is also inclined to ignore the defect as has
been pointed out by the SR to enable to disposal of the revision
today itself.
9. Perused the impugned order in Criminal Appeal No.63
of 2022 as at Annexure-6. In fact, learned 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Cuttack while dealing with the appeal and
disposing it of confirmed the order dated 17th September, 2021
of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, JMFC, Niali in D.V.
Misc. Case No.04 of 2019 whereby the petitioner was directed
to make payment of monthly maintenance at the rate of
Rs.3,000/- to be received by opposite party No.2, namely, wife.
10. Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that opposite party No.2 demanded maintenance at the
rate of Rs.15,000/- a month and Rs.1000/- towards litigation
expenses from the petitioner and such monthly maintenance
was allowed as per Annexure-2 and finally confirmed in
appeal. The submission is that the petitioner works as a Home
Guard and has no sufficient means to pay monthly maintenance
of Rs.3000/- to opposite party No.2, who lived with him and in-
laws only for 12 days and while claiming so, he refers to a copy
of the objection i.e. Annexure-3 filed in D.V. Misc. Case No.04
of 2019. The claim is that there has been no any harassment
meted out to opposite party No.2 and therefore, in absence of
any domestic violence committed by the petitioner, any such
order of monthly maintenance as has been directed vide
Annexure-5 and confirmed in appeal by learned court below is
unjustified.
11. Recorded the submission of Mr. Behera, learned AGA
for the State appearing for opposite party No.1, who justifies
the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- payable to the
wife of the petitioner.
12. The details of the circumstances leading to the
separation of opposite party No.2 from the petitioner stand
narrated in the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5 of the learned
JMFC, Niali. It was claimed that the petitioner has a monthly
income of Rs.15,000/- but in absence of any direct evidence,
the court of 1st instance fixed it at Rs.3000/- to be payable
within 10th day of each succeeding month to opposite party
No.2. At the relevant point of time, as it is further revealed
from Annexure-5, the petitioner was engaged at Nimapara PS
as a Home Guard with a monthly remuneration of Rs.9000/-. In
fact, the petitioner admitted such monthly income before the
court of learned JMFC considering which the maintenance has
been accordingly fixed. It is informed to the Court that opposite
party No.2 is staying separate from the petitioner, who is
inclined to receive her back to live a happy conjugal life. But
then, having regard to the circumstances described in the
impugned order at Annexure-5 and since the appeal at the
instance of the petitioner was ultimately dismissed, it has to be
concluded that opposite party No.2 had just excuses to stay
away from the petitioner in view of the harassment, she was
subjected to. Nevertheless, the claim is that opposite party No.2
stayed for 12 days only at her in-laws house but for the details
of the harassment as has been revealed and described in
Annexure-5, the Court has no justifiable ground to disbelieve
the same and to hold that the wife of the petitioner had
reasonable excuse rather to leave her in-laws house.
13. But with regard to the maintenance as has been allowed
in favour of opposite party No.2, Mr. Rout, learned counsel
submits that the petitioner since works as a Home Guard and
has other responsibilities to shoulder upon, an amount of
Rs.3000 is on the higher side and the same is, therefore, needed
to be reduced in the interest of justice. Again an objection is
received from the learned counsel for the State towards
reduction of the monthly maintenance and that too, in absence
of opposite party No.2. Nonetheless, taking into account, the
objection i.e. Annexure-3 and the income certificate at
Annexure-6, which reveals an allowance of Rs.300 per day
only and entirety of evidence received by the court of learned
JMFC, Niali, the Court reaches at a conclusion that the monthly
maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- should be reduced
marginally. Such is the view of the Court for the reason that the
petitioner has an income on a daily basis so revealed from
Annexure-4 even though a monthly income is shown to have at
Rs.9000/-. In fact, in view of Annexure-4, one receives daily
allowance and if, the duty is not performed, there shall be 'no
work, no pay'. Having regard to the income of the petitioner
being engaged as a Home Guard and there has been an order of
maintenance which he cannot avoid having the marital
obligation to discharge and to maintain opposite party No.2, the
Court finally reaches at a conclusion that the amount of
maintenance should be re-fixed at Rs.2500/- as it would instead
serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.
14. Hence, it is ordered.
15. In the result, the revision petition stands allowed in
part. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order in Criminal
Appeal No.63 of 2022 by learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, Cuttack is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid in
respect of the proceeding D.V. Misc. Case No.4 of 2019 re-
fixing the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- payable
to opposite party No.2 as has been directed and in the manner
prescribed in Annexure-5.
16. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: OHC, CTC
Date: 02-Jul-2025 19:18:03
