Orissa High Court
Sudarshan Hans vs Bimala Hans .... Opposite Party on 20 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.428 of 2018
Sudarshan Hans .... Petitioner
Mr. M. Mohapatra, Advocate
-Versus-
Bimala Hans .... Opposite Party
Mr. Niranjan Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
20.09.2025
Order No.
13. 1. Heard Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the
impugned judgment dated 28th November, 2017 passed in
connection with Criminal Revision No.17 of 2015 by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Titilagarh on the grounds stated.
3. The opposite party moved an application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Titilagarh in
CMC No.39 of 2009 and it was dismissed vide judgment dated
21st March, 2015 and the same was challenged in Criminal
Revision No.17 of 2015 before the learned Court below and
disposed of vide Annexure-6 allowing maintenance for an
amount of Rs.2000/- payable by the petitioner. The said order
of maintenance in favour of the opposite party has been
challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that there
is no valid marriage between the parties.
4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the opposite party is not the lawful married wife of
the petitioner and there has been a decree in C.S. No.29 of
2009. It is submitted that the suit was disposed of on 24 th
November, 2014 and dismissed, as against which, the opposite
party filed RFA No.06 of 2015 and again dismissed on 31st
August, 2016 and therefore, the learned Court below could not
have allowed maintenance in terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The
submission is that the suit was instituted by the opposite party
seeking restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, but it was dismissed and upheld in appeal
and the same has attained finality. The further submission is
that in view of the decree in the suit and confirmed in the
appeal and having held that the opposite party is not the lawful
wife of the petitioner while denying restitution, it was not
justified on the part of the learned Court below to allow
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of the
opposite party, hence therefore, the impugned judgment at
Annexure-6 is liable to be interfered with and set aside.
5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party, on
the other hand, justifies the impugned decision of the learned
Court below as per Annexure-6 on the ground that there is
evidence regarding marriage between the parties and taking
judicial notice of the same, the maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C. has been directed by the learned court below. It is
further submitted that out of marriage between the petitioner
and opposite party, a daughter is born and therefore,
considering the same, the learned Court below allowed
maintenance for an amount of Rs.2000/- a month, hence, the
same should not be disturbed, rather, the impugned judgment at
Annexure-6 is to be upheld.
6. Considering the fact that the suit under Section 9 of the
Hindu Marriage Act demanding restitution of conjugal life
demanded by the opposite party stood dismissed and has been
confirmed in RFA No.06 of 2015 prior to the order of
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and on perusal of the
impugned judgment at Annexure-6, this Court finds that there
is no discussion with regard to the decree and marital status of
the opposite party vis-à-vis the petitioner, whether, to be legally
wedded wife or otherwise, the Court is of the view that the
same is required to be examined by the learned Court below for
a fresh decision.
7. As to the maintainability of the revision, as a
preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Singh, learned counsel
for the opposite party, in view of the decision of this Court in
Ajaya Kumar Mishra and others Vrs. State of Orissa and
another (1998) 15 OCR 563, the same is to fall flat. In fact,
the revision before the learned Court below was at the instance
of the opposite party and not the petitioner, who can maintain
the present revision for the decision in Ajaya Kumar Mishra
(supra) and therefore, such objection raised by Mr. Singh,
learned counsel for the opposite party is liable to be rejected.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
view that the impugned decision as per Annexure-6 is liable to
be interfered with for a fresh decision by the learned Court
below on the plea advanced by the petitioner regarding the
marital status of the opposite party in view of the decree in the
suit and decision in RFA No.06 of 2015 and accordingly, it is
ordered.
9. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of
with the direction to the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Titilagarh to consider disposal of Criminal Revision No.17 of
2015 afresh and the same is accordingly restored to file. It is
further directed that after hearing both the sides and
considering the plea of the petitioner regarding the decree in
C.S. No.29 of 2009 and disposal of RFA No.06 of 2015 vis-à-
vis the status of the opposite party, the learned court below to
dispose of the revision as per and in accordance with law at the
earliest preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order, without entertaining unnecessary
adjournments from both the sides and till such time, the
petitioner is directed to continue making payment of Rs.2000/-
to the opposite party, as an interim measure.
10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
