[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Krushna Chandra Parida vs Soubhagini Baliarsingh .... Opposite ... on 10 April, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.21 of 2025
An application U/S 28 of Hind Marriage Act, 1955
Krushna Chandra Parida .... Petitioner
Versus
Soubhagini Baliarsingh .... Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case :
For Petitioner : Mr. Haripada Mohanty, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. Satya Narayan Mishra-4
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 10th April, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Learned
counsel for the opposite party also made his brief response.
2. The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before this Court
challenging the judgment and order dated 13.11.2024 passed by
the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Cr.P. No.99 of
2020.
3. The Cr.P. was filed by the wife in the marriage under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by
pari materia provision contained in Section 144 of BNSS, 2023).
The petitioner-wife had claimed Rs.40,000/- per month towards
maintenance for her and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. The
petition was favoured, however, directing payment of Rs.8,000/-
per month towards maintenance from the date of the application
i.e. 06.08.2020.
4. Copy of the entire order sheet of the proceeding starting
with order of issuance of notice dated 19.08.2020 by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar till the order dated
13.11.2024, has been filed before this Court. The learned Judge,
Family Court has delved into the pleadings, statements of the
petitioner-wife as O.P.W.1 and five exhibits marked on behalf of
the petitioner-wife. Apparently, the opposite party-husband had
not filed the written statement by the time the evidence on his
behalf was directed to be closed by order dated 18.07.2024.
It is also indicated that the opposite party-husband chose
not to cross-examine the wife-PW1. He did not examine himself
nor did he adduce any other evidence or mark any exhibit before
the learned Family Court to support his case.
5. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court that the proceeding before the
learned Family Court was impacted due to the Covid pandemic
but it has to be noticed that starting with the order dated
21.02.2022 the proceeding was substantial till it was disposed of
on 13.11.2024. During this period Covid pandemic had receded
and life had largely returned to normalcy.
6. On being asked it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioner upon instruction that the order closing the
evidence from the side of the opposite party-husband has not
been challenged nor any petition was filed for recall of the said
order which could have been considered by the learned Family
Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order in
the proceeding dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Family
Judge which is reproduced herein:
"Case record is posted today for evidence of the OP as
Spl. Chance and for payment. Both the parties are
present with their respective counsel. The OP did not file
the evidence affidavit, inspite of the several opportunities
given to him. Hence the evidence of the OP is closed. In
the mean time counsel for the OP filed objection and a
petition praying to dismiss of the said matrimonial
complaint. Copies are served. Further counsels for the
petitioner filed a memo annexing with balance sheet of
arrear maintenance dues. However, put upon 31.07.2024
for objection and hearing on the petition filed today and
for argument."
8. Before the aforesaid order, the orders dated 20.05.2024,
22.06.2024 and 08.07.2024 have to be taken note of. In view of
these two orders passed prior to 18.07.2024 granting
opportunity to the opposite party-husband to adduce evidence,
the learned Family Court was correct in proceeding with the
matter for further adjudication directing the evidence from the
side of the opposite party was closed. Thereafter, the orders
dated 31.07.2024 and 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Family
Court have to be noted and reproduced herein:
"Order dt.31.07.2024
The case record is posted today for filing of the
objection and hearing on the petition dt. 18.07.2024
and for argument. Both the parties are present with
their respective counsel. Counsel for the OP filed
evidence affidavit along with a memo annexing with
documents. Copies are served. Counsel for the
petitioner orally objected to the petition dt. 18.07.2024.
Heard on the aforesaid petition from both the sides.
However, put upon 12.08.2024 for order.
Order dt.14.08.2024
This order arises out of the petition dated 18.07.2024
filed on behalf of the opposite party to dismiss this case
and to recall the order dated 11.01.2023. I have
already heard the parties. It is submitted on behalf of
the opposite party that the petitioner has not followed
the prescribed procedure laid down by the Hon'ble High
Court of Orissa in connection with the Family Court.
The petitioner has not filed her disclosure statements of
assets and liability and accordingly, entire order dated
11.01.2023 is barred in law and the amount ordered is
unreasonable and unjust and the petitioner has not
come to the Court with clean hands and so, the case be
dismissed and the order dated 11.01.2023 be recalled.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner
orally objected the petition and further submits that the
petitioner has been filed only to harass her and deprive
her from her legitimate claim and it has filed this case
against the opposite party for maintenance. Vide order
dated 11.01.2023, the opposite party has been
directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner
towards interim maintenance. The amount directed vide
order dated 11.01.2023 is just and reasonable as the
opposite party is a Govt. Servant and as such, the
petition deserves no merit and the same stands
rejected. On perusal of the case record, it is found that
the evidence of both the sides have already been closed
and the case is posted for argument. Hence, put up on
dated 01.09.2024 for argument."
9. Scope of interference by this Court in orders passed by the
learned Family Court particularly in matters i.e. application
seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.c. has been
authoritatively dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan1. The paragraphs 20
and 21 (from SCC Online Web Edition print) are apt and are
applied for the present adjudication. The said paragraphs are
reproduced herein:
"20. In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court
has reduced the amount of maintenance from
Rs.4000 to Rs.2000. As is manifest, the High Court
has become oblivious of the fact that she has to stay
on her own. Needless to say, the order of the learned
Family Judge is not manifestly perverse. There is
nothing perceptible which would show that order is a
sanctuary of errors. In fact, when the order is based
on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no
Revisional Court should have interfered with the
reason on the base that it would have arrived at a
different or another conclusion. When substantial
justice has been done, there was no reason to
interfere. There may be a shelter over her head in the
parental house, but other real expenses cannot be
ignored. Solely because the husband had retired,
there was no justification to reduce the maintenance
by 50%. It is not a huge fortune that was showered
on the wife that it deserved reduction. It only reflects
the non-application of mind and, therefore, we are
unable to sustain the said order.
21. Having stated the principle, we would have
proceeded to record our consequential conclusion.
But, a significant one, we cannot be oblivious of the
asseverations made by the appellant. It has been
asserted that the respondent had taken voluntary
retirement after the judgment dated 17.2.2012 with
the purpose of escaping the liability to pay the
maintenance amount as directed to the petitioner;
that the last drawn salary of respondent taken into
account by the learned Family Judge was
Rs.17,564/- as per salary slip of May, 2009 and
after deduction of AFPP Fund and AGI, the salary of
(2015) 5 SCC 705
the respondent was Rs.12,564/- and hence, even on
the basis of the last basic pay (i.e. Rs.9,830/-) of the
respondent the total pension would come to
Rs.14,611/- and if 40% of commutation is taken into
account then the pension of the respondent amounts
to Rs.11,535/-; and that the respondent, in addition
to his pension, hand received encashment of
commutation to the extent of 40% i.e. Rs.3,84,500/-
and other retiral dues i.e. AFPP, AFGI, Gratuity and
leave encashment to the tune of Rs.16,01,455/- The
aforesaid aspects have gone uncontroverted as the
respondent-husband has not appeared and contested
the matter. Therefore, we are disposed to accept the
assertions. This exposition of facts further impels us
to set aside the order of the High Court.
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
10. In Shamima Farooqui (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has considered nature of application seeking
maintenance, the jural concept of maintenance and has made
observations regarding what should be the approach of Family
Courts in adjudicating the matters as well as High Court in
revision/appeal. The paragraphs which are very apt and
appropriate are relied upon and are applied to the present
adjudication. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein (SCC
Online Web Edition print):
"11. The aforesaid finding of the High Court,
affirming the view of the learned Family Judge is
absolutely correct. But what is disturbing is that
though the application for grant of maintenance was
filed in the year 1998, it was not decided till 17-2-
2012. It is also shocking to note that there was no
order for grant of interim maintenance. It needs no
special emphasis to state that when an application
for grant of maintenance is filed by the wife the delay
in disposal of the application, to say the least, is an
unacceptable situation. It is, in fact, a distressing
phenomenon. An application for grant of maintenance
has to be disposed of at the earliest. The Family
Courts, which have been established to deal with the
matrimonial disputes, which include application
under Section 125 CrPC, have become absolutely
apathetic to the same.
12. The concern and anguish that was expressed by
this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [(2015)
6 SCC 353 : AIR 2014 SC 2875] , is to the following
effect : (SCC paras 12-13)
"12. The Family Courts have been established for
adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure
and to deal with family disputes in a speedy and
expeditious manner. A three-Judge Bench in K.A.
Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida [(2003) 4 SCC 166 :
2003 SCC (Cri) 810] , while highlighting on the
purpose of bringing in the Family Courts Act by
the legislature, opined thus : (SCC p. 170, para
10)
'10. The Family Courts Act was enacted to
provide for the establishment of Family Courts
with a view to promote conciliation in, and
secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating
to marriage and family affairs and for matters
connected therewith.'
13. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is
that in the case at hand the proceeding before
the Family Court was conducted without being
alive to the Objects and Reasons of the Act and
the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of
the Code. It is unfortunate that the case
continued for nine years before the Family
Court. It has come to the notice of the Court
that on certain occasions the Family Courts
have been granting adjournments in a routine
manner as a consequence of which both the
parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife
becomes the worst victim. When such a
situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets
totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected
to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing
with extremely delicate and sensitive issues
pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary
thereto. When we say this, we do not mean
that the Family Courts should show undue
haste or impatience, but there is a distinction
between impatience and to be wisely anxious
and conscious about dealing with a situation.
A Family Court Judge should remember that
the procrastination is the greatest assassin of
the lis before it. It not only gives rise to more
family problems but also gradually builds
unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It leads
to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings,
if still left. The delineation of the lis by the
Family Judge must reveal the awareness and
balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties
has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family
Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the
lis before him pertains to emotional
fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow.
We hope and trust that the Family Court
Judges shall remain alert to this and decide
the matters as expeditiously as possible
keeping in view the Objects and Reasons of the
Act and the scheme of various provisions
pertaining to grant of maintenance, divorce,
custody of child, property disputes, etc."
(emphasis supplied)
13. When the aforesaid anguish was expressed, the
predicament was not expected to be removed with
any kind of magic. However, the fact remains, these
litigations can really corrode the human relationship
not only today but will also have the impact for years
to come and has the potentiality to take a toll on the
society. It occurs either due to the uncontrolled design
of the parties or the lethargy and apathy shown by
the Judges who man the Family Courts. As far as the
first aspect is concerned, it is the duty of the courts to
curtail them. There need not be hurry but
procrastination should not be manifest, reflecting the
attitude of the court. As regards the second facet, it is
the duty of the court to have the complete control over
the proceeding and not permit the lis to swim the
unpredictable grand river of time without knowing
when shall it land on the shores or take shelter in a
corner tree that stands "still" on some unknown bank
of the river. It cannot allow it to sing the song of the
brook. "Men may come and men may go, but I go on
forever." This would be the greatest tragedy that can
happen to the adjudicating system which is required
to deal with most sensitive matters between the man
and wife or other family members relating to
matrimonial and domestic affairs. There has to be a
proactive approach in this regard and the said
approach should be instilled in the Family Court
Judges by the Judicial Academies functioning under
the High Courts. For the present, we say no more."
11. The Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui (supra) has also
dealt with the aspect of determination of quantum of
maintenance. The relevant paragraphs are applied and
reproduced herein from (SCC Online Web Edition print):
"14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the High
Court, it is noticed that the High Court has shown
immense sympathy to the husband by reducing the
amount after his retirement. It has come on record
that the husband was getting a monthly salary of
Rs 17,654. The High Court, without indicating any
reason, has reduced the monthly maintenance
allowance to Rs 2000. In today's world, it is
extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her
status would be in a position to manage within Rs
2000 per month. It can never be forgotten that the
inherent and fundamental principle behind Section
125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of
affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that a
woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her
matrimonial home. The statute commands that there
have to be some acceptable arrangements so that
she can sustain herself. The principle of sustenance
gets more heightened when the children are with
her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean
and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A
woman, who is constrained to leave the marital
home, should not be allowed to feel that she has
fallen from grace and move hither and thither
arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled
to lead a life in the similar manner as she would
have lived in the house of her husband. And that is
where the status and strata of the husband comes
into play and that is where the legal obligation of the
husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the
wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within
the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be
adequate so that she can live with dignity as she
would have lived in her matrimonial home. She
cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a
beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an
order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a
person despite having sufficient means neglects or
refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is
advanced by the husband that he does not have the
means to pay, for he does not have a job or his
business is not doing well. These are only bald
excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in
law. If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in
a position to support himself, he is under the legal
obligation to support his wife, for wife's right to
receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless
disqualified, is an absolute right.
15. While determining the quantum of maintenance,
this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC
p. 12, para 8)
"8. ... The court has to consider the status of
the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of
the husband to pay having regard to his
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance
and of those he is obliged under the law and
statutory but involuntary payments or
deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for
the wife should be such as she can live in
reasonable comfort considering her status and
the mode of life she was used to when she lived
with her husband and also that she does not feel
handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At
the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be
excessive or extortionate.""
12. The aspect of grant of maintenance to wife to be directed by
Courts to be made by the husband as a legal obligation, has also
been elaborated in Shamima Farooqui (supra). The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced from (SCC Online Web Edition
print) and the principles are also applied in determining the
present revision application:
"16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived
as a measure of social justice by this Court.
In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008)
1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , it has been
ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6)
"6. ... Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social
justice and is specially enacted to protect women
and children and as noted by this Court in Capt.
Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena
Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508]
falls within the constitutional sweep of Article
15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution
of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose.
The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution.
It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of
food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It
gives effect to fundamental rights and natural
duties of a man to maintain his wife, children
and parents when they are unable to maintain
themselves. The aforesaid position was
highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 787] ."
17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation
of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be
permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the
wife due to financial constraints as long as he is
capable of earning.
18. In this context, we may profitably quote a
passage from the judgment rendered by the High
Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila
Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 :
AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus :
(SCC OnLine Del para 7)
7. ... an able-bodied young man has to be
presumed to be capable of earning sufficient
money so as to be able reasonably to maintain
his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say
that he is not in a position to earn enough to be
able to maintain them according to the family
standard. It is for such able-bodied person to
show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that
he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to
earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of
maintaining his wife and child. When the
husband does not disclose to the Court the exact
amount of his income, the presumption will be
easily permissible against him.
19. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid
that the obligation of the husband is on a higher
pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife
and children arises. When the woman leaves the
matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She
is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes her faith in
life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the
tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her
fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At
this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose
is that the husband is bound to give monetary
comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she
cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the
lawful imposition for grant of maintenance
allowance."
13. Having gone through the judgment passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court considering the evidence on affidavit filed
on behalf of the petitioner (Annexure-4), the orders sheet
maintained in proceeding the reasoning given in the judgment it
has to be held there is nothing perceptible which would show
that the judgment passed by the learned Judge, Family Court
is a sanctuary of errors. Rather, it has to be held that the
judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.
It has to be held that by awarding the maintenance considering
the income of the husband substantial justice has been done.
14. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, it has to be and
is held that no interference is warranted by this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
15. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
16. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
In view of the petition having been dismissed the payments
made in the interregnum during pendency of this petition shall
be adjusted towards the monthly maintenance to be paid to the
opposite party-wife by the petitioner. The parties shall work out
the calculations accordingly.
Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 10th April, 2026/Jyostna
