[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pahali Kumar Nayak vs Rita Nayak And Another .... Opp. Parties on 15 January, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 15 of 2026
Pahali Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K.Behera, Advocate
-versus-
Rita Nayak and another .... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
15.01.2026
Order No. Hybrid Mode
01. 1. After hearing for some time, the matter was passed over
at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner to
enable hm to obtain up-to-date instruction. Later the matter is
taken up and after further hearing the order follows.
2. The petitioner who was the opposite party before learned
Judge, Family Court challenges the judgment dated 24.2.2025
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara in a
petition filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the opposite parties-
mother and son claiming to be the legally married wife of the
petitioner. At paragraph-2 of the said judgment following has
been indicated :
"2. The case of the petitioners in short is that, the
petitioner no.1 is the legal wedded wife of the OP and
their marriage was solemnized on 07.12.2007 as per
Hindu rites and customs and after solemnization of
marriage, the petitioner no.1 and the OP lived together
in the house of the OP and maintain conjugal life and
out of the same, on dtd.20.10.2013 they were blessed
with a male child i.e., the petitioner no.2. At the time of
marriage, the parents of the petitioner no.1 had given
cash of ₹1,00,000/-, gold ornaments and other
household articles as dowry. After 9 years of
marriage, the OP again demanded the petitioner no.1
to bring cash of ₹1,00,000/- from her father. The
petitioner no.1 expressed the inability of her father to
fulfil their demand the OP tortured the petitioner no.1
both physically and mentally. The petitioner no.1 bore
all the torture hoping for bright future. The parents and
village gentries of the petitioner no.1 came and
requested the OP to stop torturing the petitioner no.1.
Though the petitioner no.1 requested several times,
but the OP did not pay any heed. On 25.12.2021 the
OP drove the petitioner no.1 out from his house by
demanding to bring the demanded money. The OP
snatched away all the gold ornaments of the petitioner
no.1. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1came to her
parental house along with her minor son and since
then they are residing there. On 06.05.2022 the
petitioner no.1 requested the OP to maintain them, but
he flatly refused to her proposal. The petitioner no.1
has pleaded that, she has no independent source of
income to maintain herself and her minor son, to meet
the expenses of their food, clothing, study and medical
expenditure and also other necessary requirements.
On the other hand, the OP is serving at RTO,
Sambalpur in O.M.V.D. Department and is earning
₹90,000/- per month and apart from that he is earning
₹1,00,000/- per month by giving house as rent and he
is also earning ₹2,00,000/- per annum out of his
ancestral landed property. With all these averments,
the petitioners have prayed to direct the OP to pay a
sum of ₹25,000/- and ₹10,000/- per month to the
petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.2 respectively
towards their maintenance and also directed to pay a
sum of ₹20,000/- towards litigation expenses. (sic)
3. At paragraph-3 of the order under challenge, it has been
observed that summons were issued to the opposite party-
petitioner which was sufficient. The petitioner-opposite party
did not appear and he was set ex parte by order dated
5.1.2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is now facing execution case
no.28 of 2025.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that the
petitioner disputes the marriage and the petitioner is not
married to the opposite party no.1 and he has married another
lady and two children are born of the said wedlock.
5. This Court takes note of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra
Kumar Gandhi : (2021) 6 SCC 418 : AIR 2021 SC 2161
wherein the Apex Court have directed execution case should
not be kept pending before the executing court. At this stage
this Court would not interfere in the execution proceeding
pending before the learned executing court.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner will file petition for recall of order passed ex
parte against him. However, this Court expresses no opinion
on the said aspect of the matter.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
without prejudice to his rights and contentions in any pending
proceeding including the present proceeding, he shall deposit
₹2.5 lakhs before the learned executing court towards securing
the judgment/decree dated 24.02.2025. He prays for four
weeks time.
8. Accordingly it is directed that if the present petitioner who
is the judgment debtor in CRP Execution Case No 28 of 2025
pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara
makes a deposit of ₹2. 5 lakhs by 12.02.2026, the said amount
shall be kept in an high interest bearing fixed deposit in a
nationalized bank with auto renewal clause to the credit of the
execution case that shall abide by further orders to be passed
by this Court.
9. It is submitted that the execution case is posted
tomorrow i.e. 16.1.2026. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner shall file application seeking
adjournment. In case the application for adjournment is filed
before the learned court in the execution proceeding Ex CrP
No. 28 of 2025, matter shall be adjourned till 23.02.2026.
10. Present petition shall be listed in the week commencing
16.02.2026.
11. Issue notice along with this order to the opposite parties.
Requisites for issuance of notice by speed post with
registration and proof of delivery shall be filed within three
working days fixing returnable date to 9.2.2026.
Parties to act upon copy of the order obtained from
official website of this Court.
Urgent certified copy be issued as per Rules.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
AJIT KUMAR DUTTA
