Orissa High Court
Susanta Mohanty vs Soumya Mohanty .... Opposite Party on 4 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
8N THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.555 of 2023
Susanta Mohanty .... Petitioner
Mr. R. K. Rout, Advocate
-Versus-
Soumya Mohanty .... Opposite Party
Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
04.09.2025
Order No.
19. 1. Heard Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Das, learned counsel for opposite party.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned judgment dated 25th July, 2023 passed in connection
with Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 2022 by the learned Sessions
Judge, Khurda as at Annexure-9 on the grounds stated.
3. Referring to the additional affidavit as at flag-A. Mr.
Rout, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
opposite party is having sufficient source of income and an
MBA and was earlier employed, hence, therefore, the learned
court below fell into error in allowing interim maintenance of
Rs. 25,000/- a month while dealing with an application under
Section 23 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as 'the D.V. Act').
Furthermore, referring to the I.T. return, a copy of which is at
Annexure-8, the submission of Mr. Rout, learned counsel is
that the opposite party had an income of Rs. 2.49 lac annually
the fact which has lost sight of the learned courts below. The
submission is that as there is material on record to show the
opposite party having assets and income to survive and sustain,
the impugned order at Annexure-9 is liable to be interfered with
and set aside.
4. On the other hand Mr. Das, learned counsel for the
opposite party submits that the order of maintenance for an
amount of Rs. 25,000/- a month has not been paid and received
by the opposite party at any time before. It is submitted that the
opposite party is not presently having any employment. That
apart, the contention is that no such evidence was furnished to
the learned court below from the side of the petitioner in
response to the asset and liability affidavit i.e. Annexure-8. Mr.
Das, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is a
Software Engineer and therefore, having good income and
hence, considering the same and accepting the affidavit from
both the sides, the learned court below reached at a conclusion
and awarded maintenance of Rs.25, 000/- as per Annexure-9
which is perfectly justified and hence, not to be disturbed.
5. Perused the copy of the IT return at Annexure-8. It is
made to understand that by the time when the said return was
furnished, the opposite party had annual income of Rs. 2.49 lac.
Thus, it becomes an amount of Rs.20,000/- or 25,000/- as
monthly income of the opposite party even accepting the IT
return submitted before the learned court below. In so far as the
additional evidence is concerned filed along with an affidavit at
flag-A, the Court is of the view that all such materials are to be
gone into and examined by the court of 1st instance while
dealing with the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the
Act. The Court is not inclined and in favour of accepting the
additional affidavit while entertaining the revision. The Court is
of the view that no reasonable explanation is coming forth from
the side of the petitioner as to what prevailed upon him for not
producing the evidence in support of such source of income and
assets owned by the opposite party. Nevertheless, the Court is
of the view that the petitioner should be provided an
opportunity to submit the evidence before the court of learned
JMFC, (LR), Bhubaneswar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 607 of
2020. In any view of the matter, the petitioner being a Software
Engineer and taking into account the affidavits filed and
received from him as well as the opposite party, the learned
court below having arrived at a conclusion about the interim
maintenance payable and fixed it at Rs.25,000/- a month, the
Court is of the humble view that the same may not be claimed
to be unreasonable. But at the same time, it is reiterated that all
such material evidence as produced before the Court at present
are to be resubmitted before the court of first instance for a
final and definite decision as to what would be the just and
actual amount of maintenance payable to the opposite party.
Having said that, the Court with a conclusion that there is a
prima facie case having been proved and lawful obligation of
the petitioner to maintain the opposite party even though she is
educated subject to such plea advanced by him denying
maintenance and for having source of income and assets at her
disposal to be considered during trial, the learned court below,
while dealing with the interim maintenance in terms of Section
23 of the D.V. Act, cannot not be said to have committed any
serious illegality, hence, it deserves no interference at present.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, revision petition stands dismissed
confirming the impugned orders as at Annexures-5 and 9. It is,
however, directed that the learned JMFC (LR), Bhubaneswar
shall ensure disposal of the proceeding in Criminal Misc. Case
No. 607 of 2020 at the earliest preferably within a period of
two months after receiving evidence from both the sides
dealing with all such plea separately advanced and
independently examined without being unduly influenced by
the observations made herein above but adhering to the settled
position of law. As a necessary corollary, the interim order
dated 17th July, 2025 of this Court in I.A. No. 1138 of 2024 is
hereby vacated.
8. A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Signature
kabita Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: Ohc, Cuttack
Date: 06-Sep-2025 13:25:14
