[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ramiya Ranjan Dash vs Rashmita Choudhury .... Opp. Party on 24 February, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.326 of 2025
Ramiya Ranjan Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. S. K. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Rashmita Choudhury .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
24.02.2026
Order No. Hybrid Mode
03. 1. Office note put up by the Registry indicates that notice
issued to the opposite party-wife in the marriage has been
served personally.
2. The petitioner in the present revision application is the
husband in the marriage. He seeks to challenge the judgment
dated 10.04.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Berhampur in Criminal Proceeding No.71 of 2023 under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by pari
materia provision contained in Section 144 of BNSS, 2023).
The said application was filed by the wife in the marriage
seeking maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month and
Rs.5,000/- towards separate accommodation, sum total of
Rs.35,000/-. The application was favoured by the learned
Judge, Family Court, however granting a monthly
maintenance of Rs.25,000/- from the date of application, i.e.,
15.03.2023 for her sustenance.
3. The amount as directed to be paid is in the nature of
money decree in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in Rajnesh v. Neha: AIR 2021 SC 569: 2020 INSC
631: (2021) 2 SCC 324 (paragraphs 125 and 132 of SCC
print).
On being asked whether the petitioner has paid any
amount towards maintenance during the pendency of the
proceeding or any other proceeding, the learned counsel for
the petitioner upon instruction submits that petitioner has not
done so.
4. On being asked, how the petitioner shall secure the
amount which is the nature of money decree to challenge the
same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
has no instruction.
5. The amount of Rs.25,000/- is due for the last 35 months,
i.e., from 15.03.2023 to 15.02.2026, the total amounting to
Rs.8,75,000/-. In view of the guidelines laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision by the large Bench Rahul
S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi: (2021) 6 SCC 418 the
execution proceedings are to be completed expeditiously.
Paragraph 42 from SCC Print of the judgment are
reproduced herein:
"42. All courts dealing with suits and execution
proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below
mentioned directions:
xxx xxx xxx
42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably
resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate
execution of decree for payment of money on oral
application.
42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before
settlement of issues, the defendant may be required
to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he
is being made liable in a suit. The court may further,
at any stage, in appropriate cases during the
pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151
CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any
decree.
42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under
Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue
notice on an application of third party claiming
rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court
should refrain from entertaining any such
application(s) that has already been considered by
the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises
any such issue which otherwise could have been
raised and determined during adjudication of suit if
due diligence was exercised by the applicant.
xxx xxx xxx
42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where
it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be
frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule
98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs
in accordance with Section 35-A.
42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term "... in name
of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust
for him or on his behalf" should be read liberally to
incorporate any other person from whom he may
have the ability to derive share, profit or property.
42.12. The executing court must dispose of the
execution proceedings within six months from the
date of filing, which may be extended only by
recording reasons in writing for such delay.
42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of
the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree
without police assistance, direct the police station
concerned to provide police assistance to such
officials who are working towards execution of the
decree. Further, in case an offence against the
public servant while discharging his duties is
brought to the knowledge of the court, the same
must be dealt with stringently in accordance with
law."
6. The petitioner should have secured the amount directed
to be paid before this Court. Apparently the E.P. no.237 of
2025 is kept pending due to filing and pendency of this
petition though without securing the awarded amount. The
learned executing court shall proceed with the matter in the
pending execution case.
7. The matter shall be listed in the week commencing
06.04.2026.
Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned
Judge, Family Court, Berhampur to be kept on records of E.P.
No.237 of 2025 arising out of Criminal Proceeding No.71 of
2023.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Gs
