Orissa High Court
S. Srikanta Rao And Others vs Smt. Apurba Achary .... Opposite Party on 2 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.696 of 2024
S. Srikanta Rao and others .... Petitioners
Mr. S. Das, Advocate
-Versus-
Smt. Apurba Achary .... Opposite Party
Mr. A. Das, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
02.09.2025
Order No.
05. 1. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.47 of 2024 as at
Annexure-5 directing petitioner No.1 to pay interim
maintenance to the opposite party under Section 23 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as 'the DV Act') on the grounds stated.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the first application of the opposite party was not entertained
and it was sought to be varied in terms of Section 25(2) of the
DV Act and being unsuccessful, an appeal was preferred and
therein, the learned court below allowed interim maintenance
for an amount of Rs.10,000/- payable by petitioner No.1 to her.
The further submission is that the learned court below could not
have allowed interim maintenance when such relief was
initially denied and it was followed by an order under 25(2) of
the DV Act and in absence of a prima facie case with regard to
the allegations made by the opposite party. In support of such
contention, Mr. Das, learned counsel cited a decision of the
Apex Court in S. Vijikumari Vrs. Mowneshwarachari C in
SLP (Crl. No.5342 of 2023). A decision of the Calcutta High
Court in Sri Abhijit Saha and others Vrs. Sangita Saha,
2015 SCC Online Cal 7119 is also placed reliance on along
with an order of the Apex Court dated 28th January, 2019 in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2600-2601/2016 to contend
that a prima facie case shall have to be made out demanding
interim maintenance which could not be established by the
opposite party in the case at hand.
4. On the contrary, Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the
opposite party submits that IA No.56 of 2025 is filed seeking
recall of the Court's order dated 4th December, 2024 in IA
No.1038 of 2024 since the learned court below was not
justified in allowing interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in
favour of the opposite party.
5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the
respective parties, the Court is of the view that the revision is to
be disposed of finally and with the consent of both the sides,
the following order is passed.
6. Recording the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel
for the petitioner that the proceeding in DV Misc. Case No.376
of 2023 is on the verge of disposal as in the meantime evidence
from both the sides has been received by the court of learned
S.D.J.M., Berhampur, Ganjam, the Court is of the view that
instead of keeping the matter pending, it would be just and
proper, if a direction is issued for early disposal of the same. In
other words, the Court, without expressing anything on merits
on the rival contentions, leaving it open for the learned court
below to deal with the same and all such defences available
directs disposal of the DV proceeding within a stipulated period
and till such time with a provision to continue making payment
of interim maintenance to the opposite party as has been fixed
by this Court in IA No.1038 of 2024.
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
learned S.D.J.M., Berhampur shall ensure disposal of DV Misc.
Case No.376 of 2023 at the earliest preferably within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
