[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Charanjeet Singh Bhagal @ vs Rimmi Singh Kaur Bhagal .... Opposite ... on 30 March, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR CRLREV No.73 of 2025
Charanjeet Singh Bhagal @ .... Petitioner
Charanjeet Singh
Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
Rimmi Singh Kaur Bhagal .... Opposite Parties
and others
Mr. N.C. Jena, Advocate
And
CRLREV No. 78 of 2025
Charanjeet Singh Bhagal @ .... Petitioner
Charanjeet Singh
Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
Rimmi Singh Kaur Bhagal .... Opposite Parties
and others
Mr. N.C. Jena, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:11.12.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:30.03.2026
1. Both the revisions have been clubbed together and are
disposed of by the following common judgment.
2. Instant revisions under Section 397 read with Section
401, Cr.P.C. are at the behest of the petitioner challenging
Page 1 of 15
the impugned judgment dated 19th October, 2022 passed in
connection with Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of 2019 (Trial
No.375 of 2022) and the decisions in Criminal Appeal
Nos.40 & 42 of 2022 dated 3rd September, 2024 and 13th
September, 2024 respectively of the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Rourkela on the grounds stated.
3. CRLREV No.73 of 2025: The petitioner questioned
the correctness of the impugned judgment in Criminal
Appeal No.42 of 2022 against the decision in Crl. Misc.
Case No.339 of 2019, whereby, monthly maintenance
payable to opposite party No.1 has been enhanced to
Rs.13,000/- along with Rs.7,000/- towards alternative
accommodation besides compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
from Rs.25,000/- on the grounds inter alia that the learned
court below ought not to have modified the order of the
learned JMFC (Rural), Rourkela in the DV proceeding
wherein maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month with
Rs.5,000/- on alternative accommodation and payment of
compensation of Rs.20,000/- was directed and therefore,
such enhancement is liable to be interfered with and set
aside.
4. CRLREV No.78 of 2025: Against the order in Crl.
Misc. Case No.339 of 2019, the petitioner challenged it in
appeal but it was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd
September, 2024 for non-prosecution and such dismissal is
assailed in the present revision on the ground that no
intimation was received regarding the status of the
proceeding before the learned JMFC (R), Rourkela from the
Page 2 of 15
Counsel engaged by him and as a result, it was followed by
the order of dismissal when the cost imposed by order dated
6th August, 2024 was not complied with on the date fixed,
i.e. 8th September, 2024 and finally on 6th August, 2024
when further adjournment was sought for on medical
ground supported by documents.
5. The order of maintenance and other reliefs granted in
favour of opposite party No.1 in Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of
2019 was the subject matter of challenge at the behest of the
petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2022, whereas, it
was sought to be enhanced by opposite party No.1, hence,
the other appeal. So, the petitioner questioned the decision
of the learned JMFC(R), Rourkela with regard to
entitlement of maintenance by opposite party No.1 but the
appeal was dismissed for default. On the other hand,
Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2022 filed by opposite party No.1
was allowed on contest and to the extent indicted in the
judgment dated 13th September, 2024 with a direction to the
petitioner to pay the enhanced maintenance and
compensation besides to bear the expenses towards her
alternative accommodation. Both the decisions of the
learned courts below as to the dismissal of Criminal Appeal
No.40 of 2022 on account of default and the judgment in
Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2022 having been allowed in
favour of opposite party No.1, the petitioner has preferred
the revisions.
6. Opposite party No.1 filed Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of
2019 under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Page 3 of 15
Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DV Act')
seeking protection order and such other reliefs including
monthly maintenance besides compensation from the
petitioner alleging therein that after their marriage, she was
subjected to mental and physical torture. The grievance of
opposite party No.1 is that ever since her marriage with the
petitioner, for non-fulfilment of dowry demand, there was
continuous ill-treatment from his family. The details of the
dowry torture and ill-treatment meted out to opposite party
No.1 have been described in the application filed under the
DV Act. The manner in which opposite party No.1 was
subjected to harassment and ill-treatment in the hands of the
petitioner and in-laws stands narrated with the facts pleaded
on record before the Court of learned JMFC(R), Rourkela,
who upon receiving evidence from both the sides disposed
of the proceeding by judgment dated 19th October, 2022 and
as earlier discussed, monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-
along with Rs.5,000/- for alternative accommodation and
compensation of Rs.20,000/- was allowed in her favour.
Such compensation was further enhanced and directed to be
payable by the petitioner upon disposal of Criminal Appeal
No.42 of 2022.
7. Whether dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner
was justified? If it was a just decision to enhance the
monthly maintenance, compensation and the sum payable
towards alternative accommodation is legally tenable?
According to the petitioner, there has been no ill-treatment
to opposite party No.1 neither at his instance nor by the in-
Page 4 of 15
laws and therefore, she is not entitled to maintenance
furthermore when, alimony was directed against him in C.P.
No.40 of 2020 by the Family Court at Rourkela while
entertaining an application under Section 18 of the Hindu
Adoption and Maintenance Act, which is under challenge in
MATA No.127 of 2023 and also at her behest in MATA
No.305 of 2023 seeking enhancement, wherein, there is also
a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- but it has not been
taken judicial notice by the learned courts below, hence, any
such direction to pay further maintenance is in clear
violation of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajnesh
Vrs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324.
8. On the contrary, opposite party No.1 justifies the decision
of the learned court below in Criminal Appeal No.42 of
2022 as the maintenance and other amounts payable by the
petitioner were found to be inadequate confirming the
findings of the learned JMFC(R), Rourkela with a
satisfaction reached at regarding her ill-treatment and
mental as well as physical cruelty, she was subjected to,
hence, it should not be disturbed. According to opposite
party No.1, the learned court below did not err in allowing
the appeal to the extent modifying the interim order dated
19th October, 2022 in the DV proceeding, as the petitioner is
having sources of income to comply the same, which is also
not excess and fixed at Rs.13,000/- towards maintenance
and rightly directed other payments.
9. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Jena, learned counsel for opposite party No.1.
Page 5 of 15
10. According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner, the dismissal of the appeal by order dated 19th
October, 2022 by the learned court below should be restored
to file for its disposal on merit, as it was due to non-
payment of cost of Rs.500/- only. Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel would further submit that for the absence of the
petitioner on the date fixed, the order on cost could not be
complied with but it was not just and proper for the learned
court below to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. It is
contended that sufficient grounds exist to direct restoration
of Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2022 and that apart, the
enhanced sums on all heads cannot be sustained in law in
absence of any justification vis-à-vis the financial capacity
of the petitioner and also evidence regarding mental and
physical torture and cruelty subjected to opposite party
No.1, as the allegations were found to be exaggeration and
false by the learned JMFC(R), Rourkela Not only that, Mr.
Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
further maintenance and other payments could not have
been directed, when it has been considered and allowed in
favour of opposite party No.1 by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Rourkela in C.P. No.40 of 2022, wherein, a monthly
maintenance of Rs.12,000/- has been fixed.
11. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for opposite party No.1
contends that the learned court below considering the
maintenance and other sums payable to be meagre allowed
the enhancement while disposing of Criminal Appeal No.42
of 2022. According to Mr. Jena, learned counsel, the learned
Page 6 of 15
JMFC(R), Rourkela received evidence and affidavits in
terms of the decision in Rajnesh (supra) and considering
the materials on record and on a subjective satisfaction
reached at that opposite party No.1 was ill-treated and
subjected to cruelty, hence, had to separate from the
petitioner and that the maintenance is insufficient so also the
compensation and payment on alternative accommodation
directed enhancement and therefore, the decision of the
learned court below in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2022 is
perfectly justified and in accordance with law.
12. Perused the lower court records.
13. Opposite party No.1 examined herself, as P.W.1 and
proved six documents, whereas, the petitioner in defence
examined him as D.W.1 and mother as D.W.2 and similarly
marked six documents before the learned JMFC(R),
Rourkela. Upon receiving such evidence, the Court of first
instance concluded that certain allegations are exaggerated
but at the same time, the ill-treatment to opposite party No.1
held to have been proved and allowed the maintenance. The
said finding of the learned JMFC(R), Rourkela has been
upheld by the learned court below in Criminal Appeal
No.42 of 2022 with the other appeal of the petitioner being
dismissed for default. Even though there has been no re-
appreciation of evidence by the learned court below but it
was in complete agreement with the findings of the learned
JMFC(R), Rourkela and concluded that a case of
maintenance is made out.
Page 7 of 15
14. This Court is of the view that such a finding vis-a-vis
entitlement of maintenance of opposite party No.1 should
not be disturbed since the scope of revisional jurisdiction is
limited. According to the Court, unless a decision is found
to be perverse, the concurrent factual findings of the courts
below should not be tinkered with. It is well settled law that
in exercise of jurisdiction by way of revision, this Court is
not to upset the concurrent findings of facts when there is no
perversity and furthermore, when it is not for a revisional
court to analyze the evidence on record. It is well
established principle of law that the revisional court is not to
interfere even if a wrong order has surfaced from a court of
having jurisdiction in absence of a jurisdictional error and in
this regard, a decision of the Apex Court in Southern Sales
and Services & others Vrs. Sauermilch Design and
Handels GMBH (2008) 14 SCC 457 may have a reference.
In other words, if there is no jurisdictional wrong or
perversity in a decision and it has been followed by
affirmation in appeal, this Court exercising revisional
jurisdiction is not to unsettle the concurrent findings, which
was reiterated by the Apex Court in Bir Singh Vrs.
Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197. Turning to the case at
hand, the Court is of the conclusion that the learned
JMFC(R), Rourkela appreciated the evidence, discarded the
exaggerations and upheld the entitlement of maintenance,
which received confirmation in appeal and in absence of any
perversity therein, the same is to be upheld.
Page 8 of 15
15. As regards the quantum of compensation, Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
courts below simply ignored the order in C.P. No.40 of
2020, wherein, a similar direction for maintenance of
Rs.12,000/- has been allowed in favour of opposite party
No.1, which is also under challenge for enhancement in
MATA No.305 of 2023 besides the appeal of the petitioner
in MATA No.127 of 2023. The contention of Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel is that over and above Rs.12,000/-, a further
sum of Rs.13,000/- as maintenance allowed by the learned
court below in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2022 is grossly
unjustified and even against the settled norms of law when
monthly income of the petitioner has been accepted at
around Rs Rs.8000/- having no other assets and resources to
comply the same. On a reading of the impugned order in
DV proceeding and the judgment in appeal allowed in
favour of opposite party No.1, the Court finds that there has
been no mention about any such maintenance order of the
Family Court in C.P. No.40 of 2020. Law is well settled that
the amount of maintenance allowed in one of the
proceedings directed earlier is to be set off unless any such
direction to the contrary. If the maintenance allowed in
multiple proceedings do justify a payment in favour of the
aggrieved wife, it has to be specifically directed by the court
dealing with the proceeding by assigning reasons therefor. If
it is considered that the maintenance is payable but it shall
have to be set off as against a sum already determined by an
earlier court, it is to be directed accordingly. It is claimed by
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order
Page 9 of 15
of maintenance by the Family Court in in C.P. No.40 of
2020 was brought to the notice of both the courts below The
Court finds that he courts below did have the knowledge
regarding maintenance order in C.P. No.40 of 2020, but it
has not been taken into account while quantifying the
maintenance and enhanced thereafter.
16. Under the above circumstances, the Court is to consider
whether any such additional payment directed against the
petitioner can be sustained when opposite party No.1 has
been allowed maintenance of Rs.12,000/- with other reliefs
by the Family Court, Rourkela and pending disposal of
MATA Nos.127 and 305 of 2023. From the record, it is
made to suggest that the affidavits were called for from both
the sides in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in
Rajnesh (supra). It is further revealed that evidence was
adduced by the parties in favour of and against vis-a-vis
income of the petitioner. On one hand, the petitioner
claimed his monthly income at around Rs.7000/- to
Rs.8000/- and on the other hand, opposite party No.1
alleged his income to be more and having the means and
other sources to pay the maintenance and comply the
payments as directed by the learned court below in Criminal
Appeal No.42 of 2022.
17. The Apex Court in Chaturbhuj Vrs. Sita Bai (2008) 2
SCC 316 held and observed that a careful and just balance
must be drawn between all the relevant factors and the test
for determination of maintenance in matrimonial dispute
depends upon the financial status of the respondent and the
standard of living that the appellant as she was accustomed
to in her matrimonial home. In other words, a balance is to
be struck while undertaking an exercise to find out and
ascertain a just maintenance payable to the aggrieved wife.
The maintenance directed against the respondent shall have
to be reasonable and realistic. It is also a well settled law
that the husband is not absolved of his moral duty to
maintain his wife on the plea of having no source of income
when he is able-bodied as held and reiterated by the Apex
Court in Reema Salkan Vrs. Sumer Singh Salkan (2019)
12 SCC 312. If the respondent is having no disability
affecting his income, he cannot escape from the liability to
maintain his wife, which is not only a moral but a statutory
obligation but what would be the maintenance payable shall
have to be determined considering all such relevant factors
keeping in view the income and financial status of the
husband and as earlier stated, having regard to the standard
of living of the wife to which she is habituated.
18. In support of the income, though, there has been
evidence received from both the sides, but according to the
Court, the same is not adequate to reach at a conclusion that
the income is sufficient to justify the enhanced maintenance
when there is already an order in C.P. No.40 of 2020. If
both the orders of maintenance are taken together, it
becomes an amount of Rs.25,000/- to be payable by the
petitioner and the Court is reluctant to uphold the same
considering the nature of evidence on record. The testimony
of the mother of the petitioner examined as D.W.2 is rather
elaborate and a detailed one. As D.W.2, the petitioner's
mother deposed that the petitioner is a driver and earns a
sum of Rs.7000/- and has no other sources of income. It is
further deposed by D.W.2 that she had to withdraw money
in the year 2018 for the marriage of her daughter and in
2019, at the time when, the marriage of the petitioner took
place. It has also been deposed that the younger son is
totally illiterate and with casual vocation, he remains idle at
home and hence, she used to maintain them both and bear
their expenses. The other evidence through Ext.D/4, Ext.D/5
and Ext.D/6 have been brought on to the record by D.W.2 to
depose that she receives income from rent @ Rs.16,000/- a
month and also to bear her medical expenses between
Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- on a monthly basis. It is made to
understand on a reading of the evidence that the petitioner is
having an earning of Rs.8000/- and does not have a
permanent job but runs a cab. Against the aforesaid
backdrop, it shall have to be considered whether further
enhancement to Rs.13,000/- by the learned court below
while disposing of the appeal filed by opposite party No.1 is
reasonable? According to the Court, in absence of any
evidence to show that the petitioner has more income than
Rs.8000/- a month, it would be quite unreasonable to direct
for an additional sum of Rs.13,000/- towards maintenance
as against the order in C.P. No.40 of 2020. It is not rational
to fix the monthly maintenance at Rs.13,000/- when the
earning of the petitioner hovers around Rs.7000/- to
Rs.8000/-. Furthermore, opposite party No.1 has been
allowed maintenance of Rs.12,000/- by the Family Court,
Rourkela. How the petitioner can manage an amount of
Rs.25,000/- towards monthly maintenance when his
monthly income is far too less? It has been brought on
record that opposite party No.1 is having a source of income
and runs a beauty parlour. Whether the beauty parlour is
owned by her or someone else, there is no evidence on
record, but opposite party No.1 denies any such source of
income. Considering the evidence in its entirety and the
monthly income of the petitioner assessed at around
Rs.8,000/- and not more and the assets as disclosed by
D.W.2 belong to the family, the Court reaches at a
conclusion that further enhancement of maintenance to a
sum of Rs.13,000/- by the learned court below is unjust and
unreasonable. When opposite party No.1 is residing with her
family, the Court finds no reason and justification to direct
payment of Rs.7,000/- towards alternative accommodation.
In absence of any such need, a direction to the petitioner for
payment towards accommodation on monthly basis is not
necessary. But if opposite party No.1 seeks a separate
residence/accommodation, the petitioner shall have to
comply the same upon a demand received. The Court,
however, is not inclined to disturb the finding of the learned
courts below towards compensation and enhanced to
Rs.1,00,000/- in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case but certainly is of the view that the other payments
directed by the learned court below is not supported by
evidence. The learned JMFC(R), Rourkela fixed the
maintenance amount at Rs.3000/-, but in the present-day
world, it would be grossly insufficient. Even though the
monthly income is assessed at Rs.8000/-, but having regard
to the social status of the parties and in view of the fact that
opposite party No.1 is required to survive independently, an
amount of Rs.5000/- instead of Rs.3000/- would be justified
over and above the payment directed by this Court in
connection with the proceeding in C.P. No.40 of 2020
pending final decision in the MATAs. So the conclusion of
the Court is that in absence of any justification, payment on
alternative accommodation is not necessary and the same
shall have to be set aside and also the enhanced sum of
Rs.13,000/- a month on maintenance, which is to be fixed at
Rs.5000/- without disturbing the finding on compensation
for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, as the same is just and
reasonable keeping in view the settled position of law and
the dictum of the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra).
19. Insofar as the mischief alleged by opposite party No.1
with regard to the nature of order and that it has been
tampered with referring to the copies of the orders received
by the petitioner, according to the Court, there is no further
enquiry into the allegations of manipulation or forgery
necessary in view of the report of the learned District &
Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in record. In fact, a confidential
enquiry was held on the complaint of opposite party No.1
alleging forgery in respect of the order dated 19th October,
2022 in Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of 2019 with a conclusion
arrived at that learned JMFC(R), Rourkela either knowingly
or unknowingly passed the order on 19th October, 2022. It
has been further concluded therein that the learned
JMFC(R), Rourkela has been warned not to repeat such
mistake in future and should be more vigilant when
providing certified copy of evidence/judgment to the parties,
as revealed from the report dated 15th August, 2023
available in the record. Under the above circumstances, the
Court is inclined to close the chapter and not to direct any
further enquiry as the same is unnecessary.
20. With the above decisions, the Court is of the considered
view that there is no need for restoration of the appeal filed
by the petitioner and dismissed for default.
21. Accordingly, it is ordered.
22. In the result, the revision in CRLREV No.73 of 2025 is
hereby allowed to the extent as aforesaid thereby modifying
the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2022
arising out of Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of 2019, but the other
one in CRLREV No.78 of 2025 stands dismissed for the
reason stated herein before.
23. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Manoj
