[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sarbeswar Mishra vs Nirupama Rath .... Opp. Party on 19 January, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.06 of 2026
Sarbeswar Mishra .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Swain, Advocate
-versus-
Nirupama Rath .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order ORDER
No. 19.01.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
I.A. No.14 of 2026 & RPFAM No.06 of 2026
01. 1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was heard at
length.
2. The Petitioner-Husband in the marriage has
approached this Court challenging the judgment dated
29.08.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Jagatsinghpur in Crl.P. No.136 of 023.
3. The appeal has been filed after a reported delay of
392 days.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner
that apparently there is error in the Stamp Reporting.
The date of judgment is 29.08.2025 and the date of valid
presentation being 22.12.2025.
4. Accordingly, the matter be placed before the
Registrar (Judicial) for referring the matter for Stamp
Reporting to be done again.
5. Regarding merits of the case, it is admitted by the
Petitioner in the present petition that though he
appeared before the learned trial Court but did not
further participate in the proceeding.
6. The learned trial Court has considered the
materials on record in detail as would be evident from
the relevant Paragraphs, i.e., Paragraphs-3,4,6,9,11 &
12, which are reproduced herein:
"3. In the instance case, the opposite party had
entered his appearance through his Advocate. But
subsequently, he did not file his show cause
Accordingly he was precluded to file show cause
vide order dtd. 9.4.2024. Thereafter he did not
present at the time hearing.
4. In course of hearing, from the side of the
petitioner, two witnesses are examined including
the petitioner as P.W.1 and her father as P.W.2 and
stated substantially corroborating the averments
made in the petition. Neither the opposite party
remained presented to cross-examine the petitioner
nor he adduced any evidence from his side in
course of hearing of the case.
6. In the instant case, as it reveals from the
pleadings of the parties, it is not disputed that the
marriage between the petitioner and the opposite
party was solemnized on 8.7.2018 following Hindu
rites and custom. Therefore, this Court found that
the petitioner is the legally married wife of the
opposite party. The remaining points for
determination in the instant case are as following:
I) Whether the petitioner is unable to maintain
herself ?
II) Whether opposite party having sufficient
means is neglecting or refusing to maintain the
petitioner without any lawful excuse or reason ?
9. In the instance, the oral evidence of the
petitioner is that the opposite party is serving as a
Security Guard at Maritime Museum at Jobra,
Cuttack and getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-.
Besides the above the opposite party has sufficient
landed property of more than Ac.5.00 acres at his
native place Badamba from which the opposite
party is earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum.
The opposite party is also earning a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month from the house rent. Though
the petitioner filed her affidavit containing her
assets and liability wherein she has mentioned
about same thing, but she has not submitted any
document to establish the alleged income of the
opposite party. However, since in the instant case,
it is not disputed that the opposite party is a
healthy and able bodied man and he is also
working as a Security Guard, this court held that
the opposite party has sufficient means to maintain
the petitioner.
11. So far as the refusal on the part of the
opposite party to pay maintenance is concerned, the
opposite party has not filed his show cause not
adduced any evidence from his side regarding the
misconduct and misbehaviour of the petitioner
during her stay in his house. Therefore, the opposite
party made his intention clear to not stay further
with the petitioner and hence, question of refusal on
the part of the petitioner to stay with the opposite
party without any sufficient reason, does not arise
in the instant case. It is also not the case of either
party that they are living separately on mutual
consent or that the petitioner is living in adultery.
Therefore, this court found no reasonable ground for
refusing to pay maintenance to the petitioner by the
opposite party.
12. So far as the quantum of maintenance is
concerned, though the petitioner has claimed to the
tune of rs.15,000/- towards her monthly
maintenance, this court found that the petitioner ha
failed to establish the exact income of the opposite
party. This court only found that the opposite party
is working as a security guard in Maritime Museum,
Jobra, Cuttack and he is a healthy and able bodied
man. The petitioner being the legally married wife of
the opposite party has every right to maintain
herself with minimum dignity availing necessary
comfort. In the present days, considering the hike in
the prices of the essential commodity, it is not
possible unless a minimum amount has been paid
to the petitioner for her survival by the opposite
party."
7. The learned trial Court after considering the merits
instead of the claimed amount of Rs.15,000/- has
awarded Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance from the
date of application. Prima facie no case is made out for
interference with the order passed by the learned trial
Court.
8. However, persuaded by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner, the matter is adjourned to be listed in the
week commencing 2nd February, 2026.
9. Registry shall do the needful for Stamp Reporting
afresh.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Amit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
