Orissa High Court
Jogendra Kumar Behera vs Namita Behera .... Opposite Party on 12 November, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.136 of 2022
Jogendra Kumar Behera .... Petitioner
Mr. A. K. Behera, Advocate
-Versus-
Namita Behera .... Opposite Party
Mr. B. N. Mohapatra, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
12.11.2025
Order No.
09. 1. Heard Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
order of interim maintenance dated 7th March, 2022 as at
Annexure-1 confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2021 in
terms of Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the
grounds stated.
3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that a regular deduction is taking place from the salary
with the attachment thereof by the Court's order for an amount
of Rs. 6,000/- directed in a proceeding under Section 125
Cr.P.C. and payable to the opposite party and in the D.V.
proceeding, the further direction for such maintenance for an
amount of Rs. 3,000/- is on the higher side as the petitioner is
having other responsibilities to discharge with. The contention
is that the learned Courts below did not consider the salary of
the petitioner and other liabilities and without inviting
affidavits in terms of the Apex Court decision in Rajnesh vs.
Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, any such
order of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Act is not
legally tenable, hence, therefore, the impugned judgment of the
learned court below in appeal is liable to be interfered with.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
opposite party would submit that there is outstanding due
payable to the opposite party by the petitioner and in so far as
the salary attachment and receipt of maintenance of Rs.6,000/-
as has been directed in the proceeding under Section 125
Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is happening since April, 2025. The
further submission is that the opposite party is neither receiving
any maintenance allowed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. nor in the
D.V. proceeding as a result D.V. Execution Case No. 02 of
2024 has been levied against him by the opposite party. The
contention of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel is that the
petitioner is having sufficient means to pay the maintenance as
has been directed. It is alleged that the petitioner has remarried
in the meantime and in that connection, a criminal case has also
been registered for offences under Section 494, 323 & 506 read
with 34 of IPC, wherein, execution of NBWA is pending
against him and while claiming so, a copy of the warrant of
arrest is produced in course of hearing.
5. Perused the impugned judgment as at Annexure-1. The
learned Court below assessed the monthly salary by November,
2021 at Rs.41,393/- and accordingly, fixed the interim
maintenance for an amount of Rs. 6,000/-. Such an assessment
has been made by the learned court below taking into account
the interim maintenance allowed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In
fact, the maintenance is fixed at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- a month
in the D.V. proceeding. It is informed to the Court that the said
proceeding is pending at the stage of hearing with the closure of
evidence from the side of opposite party. It is also informed
that the defence evidence is yet to start and according to Mr.
Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party, there has
been inordinate delay in disposal of the proceeding before the
court of learned JMFC, Jajpur Road.
6. Considering the facts pleaded on record and
submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, as on
the one hand, it is alleged that there is no attachment of salary
taking place despite an order towards maintenance for an
amount of Rs. 6,000/- and the same is denied, whereas, on the
other hand, it is claimed that additional amount of Rs. 3,000/- is
excessive, the Court, without expressing anything on merits of
the case, as it is to influence the Court of first instance in the
D.V. proceeding, is of the view that a timeline should be fixed
for disposal of the proceeding in D.V. Case No. 153 of 2018
subject to payment of 50% of the outstanding due by the
petitioner leaving it open for the court concerned to deal with
plea of the parties for a final order on merit. The Court is also
of the view that the proceeding under Section 12 of the Act
should be directed to be disposed of within a stipulated period.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered.
8. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of
with the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that the
petitioner shall deposit 50% of the outstanding due payable in
terms of Section 23 of the Act received by the opposite party
with a direction to the learned JMFC, Jajpur Road, Jajpur to
expedite the hearing in connection with D.V. Case No. 153 of
2018 and to ensure its closure at the earliest preferably within a
period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. It is further directed that the proceeding in D.V.
Execution Case No. 02 of 2024 shall remain stayed subject to
compliance of the above order. It is made clear that in case the
petitioner fails to comply the directions issued hereinabove, the
learned JMFC, Jajpur Road, Jajpur shall be at liberty to proceed
with D.V. Execution Case No. 02 of 2024 to realize the same.
9. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
10. A copy of the order be immediately sent to the court
concerned forthwith for early compliance.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Kabita Judge
