Prabhas @ Pravas vs Sasmita Sahu
2025 Latest Caselaw 5262 Ori

Orissa High Court

Prabhas @ Pravas vs Sasmita Sahu on 24 March, 2025

Author: V. Narasingh

Bench: V. Narasingh

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        CRLMP No.1328 of 2023

       In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
       Constitution of India

      Prabhas @ Pravas           ....           Petitioner
      Ranjan Sahu

                            -versus-

      1.     Sasmita Sahu
      2.     Swastik Sahu        ....     Opposite Parties


             For Petitioner : Mr. B.K Sharma, Advocate
             For Opposite Parties : Mr. U.C Mishra, Advocate



                   CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

                   Date of hearing :      27.11.2024

                   Date of judgment :     24.03.2025



V. Narasingh, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Opposite parties.

1. Assailing the order dated 03/01/2023 at Annexure-3 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi, in Criminal Proceeding No. 05 of 2020 awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the Opposite Parties, inter alia on the ground that the mandate of the judgment

in Rajnesh Vs Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has not been followed by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order for interim maintenance, the CRLMP has been filed at the behest of the husband.

2. It is submitted by the petitioner that the opposite party no.1 his wife has voluntarily withdrawn from matrimony without any justifiable reason and at no point of time the petitioner has refused/neglected to maintain his wife and child as alleged. Therefore, exercise of power under Section 125 CR.P.C. is unwarranted and there is no occasion to award interim maintenance in favour of the opposite parties in terms of provisions of Section 125 CR.P.C..

3. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order awarding interim maintenance to the opposite parties is bad and illegal since mandates of the judgment Rajnesh Vs Neha(supra) was not followed before passing the order for interim maintenance. Filing of Affidavit of disclosure of Assets and Liabilities in terms of the aforesaid judgment before the concerned Court is a mandatory requirement, which has not been followed before passing the impugned order of interim maintenance, thereby rendering the same illegal.

4. And it is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the opposite party No.1 (wife of the Petitioner) is a Post Graduate in Hindi literature and is working as a Teacher in Gyan Bharati Karlamunda School at Karlamunda district Kalahandi and is drawing a salary of

Rs,3,500/- per month, therefore is not entitled to any maintenance.

And it is submitted that without taking into account the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C in its proper perspective, the learned Court below has awarded interim maintenance. Thus there is perverse exercise of jurisdiction which merits interference of this Court in exercise of plenary jurisdiction.

5. Referring to the impugned order at Annexure-3, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that there is no error in the impugned order, and the same has been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant factors including the income of the petitioner and financial requirement of the opposite parties to meet their basic needs and balancing it with their financial resources. 5A. It is contended that the petitioner admittedly working as a fully salaried Govt. Teacher and the Opposite Party no.1 has no income of her own and the Opposite Party No.2 is about 7 years old and is studying in School at Bhawanipatna. Thus the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) has been rightly awarded.

5B. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C at Annexure-1 was filed on 27.01.2020 and judgment Rajnesh Vs Neha(supra) is passed 04.11.2020. And since judgment is prospective in nature, the exercise of power

U/s.125 Cr.P.C awarding maintenance cannot be assailed on the sole ground of non-filing of asset and liability certificate. 5C. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner though participated in the proceeding and filed his written statement, did not raise any objection in this regard, thus he is precluded from challenging the interim maintenance by doctrine of acquiescence and cannot maintain the present CRLMP on the said ground, as such interim maintenance has been rightly awarded to the Opposite Parties, even in the absence of such asset-liability certificate.

6. Perused the record. Admittedly there is no dispute regarding status of the Opposite Party vis-à-vis the Petitioner. It is alleged that on account of marital discord and persistent physical and mental torture, the Opposite Party No.1 left the company of the Petitioner in the year 2019. As it is revealed from the orders of the learned Court below that during counseling both the parties agreed to reside in a rented house at Bhawanipatna for a better conjugal life and also keeping in view study of their son. However, after staying together for few months, again there was marital discord and the Opposite Party No.1 left the rented house. Thereafter, the Opposite parties filed application at Annexure-1 seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

7. The Learned Court in seisin after taking into consideration the income of the parties and after hearing the parties at length, passed the interim order of maintenance

on 03.01.2023 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition inter alia on the ground that mandates of judgment in Rajnesh Vs Neha(supra) has not been followed.

8. As to the applicability of the law laid down in Rajnesh Vs Neha, admittedly the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to non-filing of Asset and liability certificate before the learned Court below. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on the said ground.

In this context the learned Counsel for the opposite parties relies on the Order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Anupati Rajesh Vs. Peruboina Anusha Sai, CRP No. 3352 of 2023.This Court respectfully concurs with such view.

9. To substantiate his stand that in order to decide the quantum of maintenance it is mandatory for the parties to file asset and liability certificate in terms of dictum of Rajnesh Vs Neha(supra), the petitioner relied upon decision of Apex Court in Aditi Alias Mithi Versus Jitesh Shartjia reported in 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1451, wherein order reducing the quantum of maintenance without any basis was assailed and the Apex Court while setting aside the said order directed the parties to file asset and liability certificate in terms of the decision in Rajnesh Vs Neha (supra). The said case is factually distinguishable since the impugned order therein reducing the award of maintenance

from Rs.20,000.00/- to Rs.7,500.00/- by High Court was cryptic and bereft of reasons and was passed recording the husband's subsequent alleged debt and financial distress, ignoring the welfare of the child in whose favour maintenance was passed.

10. In the case at hand the asset and liability certificate filed by the Opposite Party No.1 before this Court is on record which shows that she has no income source and the Husband of applicant i.e. the Petitioner is working as teacher in government school and getting Salary of Rs. 38,182/- per month [Gross salary as per salary slip of April- 2023 apart from income of Rs 2,00,000/- (Approximately) from his ancestral agricultural land]. Such assertion is unrebutted.

10A. Be that as it may, it is worth mentioning that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C was filed on 27.01.2020 and the judgment in Rajnesh Vs Neha (supra) was passed on 04.11.2020 in which guidelines have been laid down making filing of asset and liability certificate mandatory has been passed to address the serious concern which finds place in the said judgment i.e. "It was noticed that the terms of maintenance are decided on the basis, of pleadings of parties and on the basis of some amount of guess work. It is often seep that both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. The tendency of the wife is to exaggerate her needs, whereas the, husband tends to conceal his actual income. Keeping that in view, this Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance."

10B. The Apex Court explicitly stated that the principles laid down in the judgment would apply ensuring clarity in maintenance proceedings. Hence, this Court is of the view that maintenance order cannot be quashed for want of non-filing of asset and liability certificate as contended by the Petitioner herein, as the same would frustrate the underlying object of both law laid down in Rajnesh vs Neha(supra) as well as provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. At the end of Para-10 will it look good. It needs no emphasis that beneficial legislation should be interpreted in such a manner that it subserves the avowed objective rather than interpreting in a way to frustrate the underlying principle of such judge made law otiose.

10C. From the materials on record it is seen that the Opp. Party No.1 has no income of her own and has pleaded for maintenance for her sustenance as well as that of her child i.e. Opposite Party No.2 from the Petitioner who is working as Govt. teacher. It is on record that the Opposite Party No.2 is only 7 years old and is studying in School at Bhawanipatna. It is apt to mention here that the fact that Opposite Party No.1 has no source of income and she has Opposite Party No.2 as her dependent, is also fortified from the asset and liability certificate filed by the Opposite Party No.1 before this Court on 02.09.2024.

10D. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Opposite Party no.1 is working and is drawing Rs.3500/- per month, as alleged by the Petitioner. Be that as it may, assuming the stand taken by the Petitioner is true, then in

the prevailing social settings it is impossible for someone to maintain herself and a school going child with a meager income of Rs.3500.00.

10E. It is admitted that the petitioner is serving as regular Govt. teacher at present working under M.Rampur Block and is drawing salary as per State pay scale norms. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the finding of the learned Court in seisin that the Petitioner has sufficient means to maintain his wife and child and is liable to maintain them does not suffer from any infirmity. 10F. It transpires from the record that the learned Court in seisin after considering the materials on record such as the salary of the petitioner directed him to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Opposite Parties as interim maintenance which is reasonable and by no stretch of reasonableness can be counted to be too high for the Petitioner who is working as a Government teacher.

11. It would apposite to mention a word regarding grant of interim maintenance that, there is no cavil regarding the aim and objective of the enactment of the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. And, as held by Apex Court that if the maintenance is not granted in a timely manner, it defeats the object of social welfare legislation. The case at hand needs to be adjudicated keeping in view the avowed legislative intent behind the enactment of Section 125 Cr.P.C and law pronounced by the Apex Court.

12. The Apex Court in catena of Judgments have ruled that the duty to maintain the wife is a fundamental

obligation and the essence of this rule is that it is the duty of a husband to provide for his wife's maintenance, regardless of his personal status or wealth, as long as he is capable of earning.

13. On a conspectus of the materials on record, since the order dated 03.01.2023, is a well reasoned order and is in consonance with the legislative wisdom behind the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C and has been passed after duly considering competing claims, this Court is of the considered view that no error has been committed by the learned Court in seisin by awarding interim maintenance of Rs.10,000.00 per month. Thus the impugned Order dated 03.01.2023 suffers from no infirmity and as such merits no interference.

14. The CRLMP is dismissed. Consequentially, interim order stands vacated.

(V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 24th March, 2025/ Soumya

Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 24-Mar-2025 16:53:38