[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sunanda Das vs Sradhanjali Das & Another .... Opp. ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.229 of 2025
Sunanda Das .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate
-versus-
Sradhanjali Das & Another .... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
Order ORDER
No. 19.01.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
01. 1. The Petitioner-Husband is before this Court
challenging the order passed by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Jajpur in a petition under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. (since repealed). The said petition was filed by
the Opposite Party No.1-Wife in the marriage, i.e., CRP
No.121 of 2023. The Petitioner is in gross default and
violation of the judgment and order dated 25.06.2025
as far as payment of maintenance is concerned.
2. On being asked, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that the Petitioner has not deposited any
amount towards satisfaction of the direction nor has
deposited any amount before this Court to secure the
direction which is in nature of amount of money
payable.
3. The learned Court below while considering the
petition, has delved into the aspect of the income of the
Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.1 in the said
petition. The relevant Paragraphs of the said order are
reproduced herein:-
"5 Explaining the income she mentions that the
OP is a software engineer earning Rs.l lakh per
month whereas she is devoid of independent source
of income and therefore, she claims maintenance of
Rs.30,000/- per month towards herself and her
minor son.
6. Conversely, the OP challenging the
maintainability of the proceeding, inter-alia, files
written objection admitting his marriage with the
petitioner No. 1 & birth of petitioner No.2 and
denying all allegations levelled against him.
Unfolding his case, the OP explains that the
petitioner is arrogant, obstinate and she was
regularly quarrelling with him in trivial issues and
she was impertinent to his elders and she was
every time engrossed in mobile conversation
without performing obligations. To promote
happiness the OP took her to his service place
where his elder brother was staying and when she
could not manage to happily live with them, he
shifted to another rented house where she
pressurised him to purchase good stuffs for her.
7. It is also flowing from his allegations that
while he was staying at Kolkata, the petitioner
suffered from gynaecological complications for
which he provided her medical treatment incurring
huge expenditure and male child was born out of
their wedlock and he celebrated the birth day
ceremony of the minor child born from her. She also
underwent surgery due to kidney stone disease. He
further alleges that though the petitioner stayed in
her house for some days she developed her
character and attitude and when he got job at
Bangalore the petitioner insisted him to take to his
work place for which he accompanied her to his
work place but she did not change her attitude. Due
to her negligence in matrimonial responsibilities, he
lost his service and now he has been staying in his
house and searched for another job staying in his
village. During such predicament of his life, the
petitioner did not return to join his society rather
motivated him to stay in her parental house and
threatened to commit suicide. .
10. Comprehensive analysis and assimilation of
the evidence of the petitioner No.l, who is examined
as P.W.I evinces that her marriage with the OP was
solemnized on 13.06.2017 in village Sainkul as per
Hindu rites and customs and after successfully
such marriage she was blessed with male child
born out of their wedlock. She specifically alleges
that though they experienced happy conjugal life for
few days she was physically and mentally tortured
by the OP due to demand remaining dowry of Rs.l
lakh. When she was pregnant she was not
medically consulted and when she was afflicted
with kidney stone disease she was also not
medically treated by her husband. In pursuance of
resolution passed in meeting convened between
them for amicable settlement, the litigation
temporarily suspended and she went to the service
place of the OP at Bangalore but again she was
tortured by the OP and his family members and
when she was attacked by his relatives to cause
his death she managed to escape from their
clutches and returned to her parental house with
her minor son on 14.02.2022 and she is now-
desperately staying there along with her son in
absence of maintenance.
11. Explaining the income of the OP, mentions that
the OP is a software engineer earning salary of Rs.l
lakh per month and she being devoid of
independent source of income and thus she is
unable to maintain herself and her son and
therefore, she claims maintenance of Rs.30,000/-
per month. She extensively cross-examined, but, the
allegations of cruelty and tortures could not be
discredited and defeated. Rather he was
consistently corroborated by her father P.W.2 and
his cross-examination was declined by the OP
leading to the conclusion that the OP has no
substantial stand to defeat the case of the petitioner
for maintenance. Rather she files the profile of the
OP marked under Ext.P-l/P.W.2 revealing that he is
a software professional. The OP fails to prove his
pleadings by adducing evidence in his favour. P.W.I
files the disclosure affidavit assets and liabilities
mentioning the income of the OP to be Rs. 1 lakh per
month and the OP fails to file counter affidavit to
disprove such informations. Therefore, in such facts
and circumstances, considering the exigencies of
granting maintenance in favour of the petitioner to
save herself from ensuing destitution and the
welfare of the minor child staying with her, I deem
it just and proper to award maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- per month in favour of herself and
Rs.5,000/- . per month in favour of her son. Hence,
it is ordered:"
4. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that the
order passed by the learned Court below is full and
proper and reasonable and not to be interfered with.
5. However, being persuaded by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner, the matter is adjourned. As it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
Petitioner is employed in private company the
Petitioner shall file affidavit giving details of his
employment, details of his salary statement, his
present address indicating the Police Station by the
next date.
5. List under the same heading in the week
commencing 2nd February, 2026.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Amit
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
