[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Pabitra Kumar Pradhan vs Sasmita Pradhan ... ... Opp. Party on 30 January, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.1548 of 2026
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------
Pabitra Kumar Pradhan ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Sasmita Pradhan ... ... Opp. Party
For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Samantaray, Advocate
For Opp. Party :
------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing & judgment: 30th January, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J. The petitioner-husband in the
marriage is before this Court challenging the order dated
07.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Bhanjanagar in Execution Petition No.03 of
2023 arising out of MAT Case No.10 of 2018.
2. The execution petition arises out of the judgment
and decree dated 17.10.2022 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar in MAT Case No.10
of 2018 filed by the decree holder -wife in the marriage.
By the said judgment and decree, decree of divorce was
granted and petitioner was directed to pay permanent
alimony of Rs.6,00,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner was heard at
length and the available pleadings were referred in detail.
4. At internal page 16 of the judgment in the judgment
dated 17.10.2022 in MAT Case No.10 of 2018 learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar has dealt with
the aspect of the determination of alimony that would be
payable to the opposite party-wife in the marriage. It
would be apt to reproduce the said paragraph from the
judgment dealing with the issue of grant of permanent
alimony.
"As far as the question of permanent alimony is
concerned it is admitted that OPW1 has not given any
maintenance either as per the decision of Kula meeting
or by virtue of the order of JMFC, Buguda in MC case
No.30/2017. It is contented from OPW1's side that PW1
has deserted her voluntarily and even did not return to
her in spite the suggestion of Kula gentries and the
judgment of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kodala in MAT
case No.10/2020 for institution of conjugal rights, she is
not entitled to get any alimony. PW1 has claimed her
ignorance about such judgment. She has also denied the
contentions of OPW1 that she had voluntarily deserted
him. PW1 has claimed that OPW1 is earning about
Rs.40,000/- per month for his job as an Asst. Teacher,
from private coaching classes and also from cultivation,
whereas she along with her daughter have been leading
measurable life without any income. Although in show
cause/counter OPW1 has reflected that due to arrest for
more than two years, he could not join his private job for
one year and at present very scanty salary. But during
cross examination he has deposed that at present he is
residing at Kodala and working as an Asst. Teacher at
Ugreswar High School, Chandiramachandrapur,
Polasara. He has been working therein since the year
2005. His salary bill is being prepared by District
Education Office, Berhampur. Apart from that he is
having landed property at Kodala. The affidavit of
assets and liability have been filed by both the parties.
OPW1 has admitted about passing of interim
maintenance order of Rs.3000/- per month in favour of
PW1 in MC case No.30/2017 by JMFC, Buguda and
non-compliance of such order by him. OPW1 has shown
his monthly income as Rs.8000/- after deduction of loan
of Rs.7,12,102/- (bank loan) and hand loan of Rs.5
lakhs. He claims to be paying installments of
Rs.15,600/- per month for bank loan and has also
mentioned about medical expenses of his parents. Ext.D
is the x-ray report of OPW1's mother. OPW1 has filed
relevant documents regarding the loans availed by him
and interests thereon from bank. But he has not filed his
salary bills, although it was required in the affidavit of
assets and liabilities. During cross examination
OPW1has contradicted form his own version that he is
employed in private sector. Whereas it is clearly evident
that is employed in a Government School as an Asst.
Teacher. OPW1 has further contented that PW1 is
getting a monthly income of Rs.20-30 thousand from
tailoring business but has not adduced any evidence to
substantiate it. PW1 has denied about such contentions.
It also transpires from Ext.4 that OPW1 had filed MAT
case No. 10/2020 before Senior Civil Judge, Kodala
claiming restitution of conjugal rights, wherein he has
reflected the profession of PW1 as household duties. So,
the version of OPW l in two different forums and in two
different cases are not same. Therefore, such
contentions is rejected. While deciding the quantum of
maintenance it would not be inappropriate to take note
of the fact that PW1 is not alone, rather the daughter of
the parties is also staying with her. So, PWl1 has been
facing the challenges to meet the expenses of providing
basic necessities like fooding, clothing, shelter,
education, medical facilities etc to her daughter too. It is
the responsibility of OPW1 to maintain his wife as well
as the child. So, it is concluded that PW1 is entitled to
get permanent alimony from OPW1."
[The lines underlined have been considered with
emphasis for adjudication of the present petition]
5. No notice is issued to the opposite party and the
writ petition is disposed of by the observations to follow.
Considering the nature of the judgment that is to be
passed, in considered opinion of this Court the opposite
party shall not be prejudiced in any manner by disposal
of the writ petition.
6. After the learned counsel for the petitioner
completed his submissions, on being asked whether in
the appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned
Additional District Judge, Bhanjanagar, MAT Appeal
No.01 of 2022 challenging the judgment and decree in
MAT Case No.10 of 2018, the petitioner-appellant has
moved for grant of order of stay of the operation of the
judgment or the decree; the response is that no such
order is there by the appellate court. It is submitted there
is no instruction as to whether the petitioner-appellant
had moved the appellate court for obtaining stay order.
7. In Rajnesh v. Neha and another: (2021) 2 SCC
324: 2020 INSC 631, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed:
"Discussion and Directions on
Enforcement of orders of Maintenance
125. The order or decree of maintenance may
be enforced like a decree of a civil court,
through the provisions which are available for
enforcing a money decree, including civil
detention, attachment of property, etc. as
provided by various provisions of the CPC,
more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read
with Order 21.
126. Striking off the defence of the respondent
is an order which ought to be passed in the
last resort, if the courts find default to be wilful
and contumacious, particularly to a dependent
unemployed wife, and minor children.
Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience
may be initiated before the appropriate court.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of
maintenance
132. For enforcement/execution of orders of
maintenance, it is directed that an order or
decree of maintenance may be enforced under
Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955;
Section 20(6) of the DV Act; and Section 128 of
Cr PC, as may be applicable. The order of
maintenance may be enforced as a money
decree of a civil court as per the provisions of
the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58,
60 read with Order 21."
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
8. In Pratima Devi and another v. Anand Prakash:
Criminal Appeal No.1399 of 2019 (arising out of SLP
(Crl.) No.7203 of 2019, disposed of by order dated
16.09.2019, the observations of the Apex Court, though
made while considering challenge to interim order passed
by the High Court in a matter arising out of a proceeding
S.125 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed), would be apt and
appropriate to follow for consideration of the present
petition. It was held:
"1. Leave granted.
2. Though served, no one appears for the
respondent. The appellants, the wife and minor
son of the respondent had filed a petition for
grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the
Criminal Procedure Code before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi. The Principal Judge by order dated
03.10.2017 passed an order granting
maintenance @ Rs.20,000/- to the appellants,
(Rs.10,000/- to the wife and Rs.10,000/- to the
minor son). This order was passed ex-parte.
The respondent filed an application for setting
aside the ex-parte order which application was
rejected on 05.09.2018. Aggrieved, the
respondent filed criminal revision No.986 of
2018 before the High Court. Along with revision
petition an application for stay was filed. The
orders passed in the said petitions read as
follows:
"Trial Court record be requisitioned. List
on 25th November, 2019. In the
meantime, execution proceedings be kept
in abeyance."
3. We are constrained to observe that this
order shows total non-application of mind on
the part of the High Court. This was a case
where maintenance had been granted to a wife
and to a minor son. The High Court without
recording any reasons whatsoever, has stayed
the grant of maintenance both to the wife and
to the minor son. This should not be done. A
husband /father is duty bound to maintain his
wife and child. Unless there are very special
reasons, the higher court should not normally
stay such an order. In the present case no
reason has been mentioned justifying the grant
of the stay order.
xxx xxx xxx"
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
in detail and considering the material on record,
particularly after perusing order dated 07.08.2025
passed in Execution Petition No.03 of 2023, judgment
dated 17.10.2022 passed in MAT Case No.10 of 2018 and
following the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court as noted above, it is held that the order passed by
the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar
dated 07.08.2025 is just and proper, based on correct
and proper appreciation of materials on record and
application of correct propositions of law.
10. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
11. Copy of this judgment shall be forwarded by the
Registry to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Bhanjanagar to be kept on records of MAT Case No.10 of
2018 disposed of on 17.10.2022 and Execution Petition
No.03 of 2023. Copy of this judgment shall also be
forwarded to the District Education Officer, Ganjam to
proceed to comply with the order of the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Bhanjanagar dated 07.08.2025.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 30th January, 2026/Jyostna
