Mohammed Mayur Jani vs Arfeen Khan And Another .... Opp. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3361 Ori

Orissa High Court

Mohammed Mayur Jani vs Arfeen Khan And Another .... Opp. ... on 10 April, 2026

Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                           RPFAM No.91 of 2026

            Mohammed Mayur Jani                 ....             Petitioner

                                    Mr. Sritam Nayak, Advocate
                              On behalf of Mr. S. Jena, Advocate

                                     -versus-

            Arfeen Khan and another             ....           Opp. Parties


                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
                                      ORDER

10.04.2026 (Hybrid Mode) Order No.

01. 1. The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before this Court seeking revision of the judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur in Cr.P. No.27 of 2025.

The said petition was filed under the provisions of Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 by the wife in the marriage aged about 29 years and minor son born out of the wedlock aged about 1 year seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for the wife and Rs.10,000/- for the child per month. The petition was favoured, however directing for payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for the wife and Rs.4000/-

for the child from the date of filing of application i.e. 10.02.2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while deciding the application the learned Judge, Family Court had not considered the aspect of the income of the petitioner and also ignored the material on record indicating the income of the petitioner herein who was the opposite party.

4. The judgment indicates that the learned Judge, Family Court relied upon the depositions of P.W.1(wife), P.W.2( (another person). The opposite party-husband did not examine any witnesses on his behalf nor he deposed himself. No documents have been marked on behalf of the petitioner-wife as well as the opposite party-husband. Learned Judge, Family Court, has relied on the assertions that the petitioner herein the husband was employed as Senior Engineer in JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. at Bijuri, Madhya Pradesh. The learned Court has also taken note of the fact that the salary of the petitioner-husband is Rs.80,000/- per month, he has landed property along with his family. The total income of the family is Rs.10.00 lakhs per annum.

5. It was also contended before the learned Judge, Family Court that the opposite party-husband is a able-bodied person who can work to earn his livelihood as well as maintain his family.

6. Regarding the contentions raised before the learned Judge, Family Court and now pleaded in the revision application: that the husband is incapable of earning, has been dealt with extensively and answered what would be approach of the Court, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan:(2015) 5 SCC 705. The said principles have also been reiterated in Rajnesh v. Neha:(2021) 2 SCC

324. Paragraphs-14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) of Shamima Farooqui (supra) SCC online print are reproduced herein:

"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 get 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 martial 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."

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, 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 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 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."

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, 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."

7. To substantiate the submission made on behalf of the husband before this Court to interfere in revision, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to refer the pleadings of the defendant-husband before the learned Judge, Family Court. The said pleadings are not available before this Court having not been

annexed. The depositions/cross-examination if any of the parties has also to be considered.

8. The petitioner has adjournment to address further regarding the issued indicated above.

9. The matter shall be listed in the week commencing 11.05.2026.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Radha