Orissa High Court
Rajkishor Rath vs Kalyani Panda .... Opposite Party on 31 March, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
A.F.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 65 of 2026
An application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 read with Section 438 read with section 442 of the
BNSS, 2023.
Rajkishor Rath .... Petitioner
Versus
Kalyani Panda .... Opposite Party
Advocates appeared in the case :
For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Bihari Das, Advocate
For Opp. Party :
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decided on : 31.03.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHR SAHOO :
1. The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before this Court seeking revision of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Criminal Proceeding No.216 of 2023 under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023. By the said judgment, the learned Judge Family Court has allowed the application filed by the wife in the marriage RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 1 of 18 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. granting maintenance for an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 05.10.2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at some length on 09.03.2026 and is again heard today at length.
The copies of pleadings of the parties and the depositions before the learned Judge, Family Court being available are considered.
3. To challenge the judgment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judge Family Court has not taken note of income of the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show the written statement filed before the learned Judge Family Court in the proceeding wherein the impugned order was passed. He refers to page 22 of the petition Annexure-3 series to submit that the affidavit indicating assets and liabilities would indicate the monthly income of the petitioner. Learned counsel was further asked to take note of the relied upon document which at page 25, paragraph 3 indicates that monthly income is Rs.7,000/- per month.
4. At paragraph 4 of the judgment, the learned family court has noted statement of the wife that the petitioner herein, husband in the marriage is serving in Danagadi Block as clerk, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Apparently, the said submission and assertion of the wife has remained unrebutted. The income of the petitioner @ Rs.30,000/- per month and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture have formed the basis for the learned family court awarding the maintenance.
RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 2 of 18
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to go through the order dated 9.3.2026 where his submissions were noted and the deliberations were also noted involving the legal issues.
In response it is emphatically stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-judgment debtor will not pay any maintenance as he is not earning any amount.
6. In view of the categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not pay any maintenance or secure the amount before this Court, to sustain the challenge this Court has to proceed further on the basis of the said submissions.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he will satisfy this Court to interfere in revision, if granted further adjournment.
In considered opinion of this Court the matter cannot be adjourned repeatedly at the instance of the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner hands over a note before this Court and refers to same which was not part of the records in the proceeding before learned trial court.
In considered view of this Court whether the petitioner is earning any amount or not, is a matter of evidence on record that was to be pleaded and proved before the learned Family Court in the proceeding that was decided by the said court.
On perusal of the judgment it is seen that, learned Judge, Family Court proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is serving in the Danagadi Block and earnings RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 3 of 18 ₹30,000/- per month. The said submission and assertion of the wife remain unrebutted. It further remains unrebutted that the amount of ₹1,00,000/- per annum is agricultural income of the husband.
9. In exercising power of revision scope of interference by the High Court with judgment of the learned Family Court, like the judgment that is under challenge has been authoritatively dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan1. Paragraphs 20 & 21 (SCC Online print), which are relevant and are relied upon are reproduced herein:
"20. In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs.4000 to Rs.2000. As is manifest, the High Court has become oblivious of the fact that she has to stay on her own. Needless to say, the order of the learned Family Judge is not manifestly perverse. There is nothing perceptible which would show that order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, when the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no Revisional Court should have interfered with the reason on the base that it would have arrived at a different or another conclusion. When substantial justice has been done, there was no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over her head in the parental house, but other real expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the husband had retired, there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it deserved reduction. It only reflects the non-application of mind and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order."
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
21. Having stated the principle, we would have proceeded to record our consequential conclusion.
1(2015) SCC 705 RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 4 of 18 But, a significant one, we cannot be oblivious of the asseverations made by the appellant. It has been asserted that the respondent had taken voluntary retirement after the judgment dated 17-2-2012 with the purpose of escaping the liability to pay the maintenance amount as directed to the petitioner; that the last-drawn salary of the respondent taken into account by the learned Family Judge was Rs 17,564 as per salary slip of May 2009 and after deduction of AFPP Fund and AGI, the salary of the respondent was Rs 12,564 and hence, even on the basis of the last basic pay (i.e. Rs 9830) of the respondent the total pension would come to Rs 14,611 and if 40% of commutation is taken into account then the pension of the respondent amounts to Rs 11,535; and that the respondent, in addition to his pension, had received encashment of commutation to the extent of 40% i.e. Rs 3,84,500 and other retiral dues i.e. AFPP, AFGI, gratuity and leave encashment to the tune of Rs 16,01,455. The aforesaid aspects have gone uncontroverted as the respondent husband has not appeared and contested the matter. Therefore, we are disposed to accept the assertions. This exposition of facts further impels us to set aside the order of the High Court.
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the learned Family Court is erroneous as the learned court has not appreciated evidence in its proper perspective. Learned counsel has been apprised of the law laid down in Shamima Farooqui (supra) and he is required to show from the written statement filed by the petitioner and evidence laid before learned trial court in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in Shamima Farooqui (supra), to support his contention.
RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 5 of 18
11. On being asked to refer to the written statement, it is submitted that copy of written statement has not been filed before this Court. Learned counsel is asked to refer to the deposition of the petitioner wife claiming maintenance; he refers to paragraph-11 of the examination in chief of the wife which is reproduced herein :
"11. That I have no source of income from any quarter to maintain myself and also my father has no such capacity to maintain me. On the other hand the O.P. is serving at Danagadi Block and receiving salary of about more than Rs. 30,000/-, beside that he is also earning about Rs.1,00,000/- from agricultural sources for annum. I need Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve thousand) per month for my maintenance, such as fooding, clothing and medicines. If this Hon'ble Court will not award the above maintenance, then my existence in this world will be vanished and I may die out of starvation."
12. It is submitted that for the statement made in examination-in-chief at paragraph-11, the wife was subjected to cross examination (recorded at para-16 of deposition at page 46 of the brief), which is reproduced :
"I had lodged FIR protesting the allegations leveled in para 10 of my affidavit, but the copy of such FIR is not filed on record, nor the alleged photographs. I have not filed relevant materials to show that the OP is working in Danagadi block earning Rs.30,000/- per month and Rs.1 lakh per annum from agricultural sources. It is not a fact that I tortured the mother of the OP and I did not discharge my matrimonial obligations and that I misbehaved with them and that I threatened to leave their society and that they became fearful due to alleged misbehaviour and conduct and that my mother threatened that to separately live with the OP from his mother and that on 17.2.2023 my brother and mother reached the house of the OP and RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 6 of 18 assaulted his parents and that collecting all my ornaments I left the house of the OP with them and that I had voluntarily left his society. It is not a fact that the OP had filed case for restitution with an intention to stay with me and that though the OP desires live with me I am declining for my affluent status."
13. As the petitioner is seeking interference by this Court in revision, the statement of P.W.2 that was considered by the learned Judge, Family Court to award maintenance has also to be taken note by this Court. Affidavit in evidence of P.W.2 annexed to the petition, (relevant paragraph-4 and cross-examination on the said point, are reproduced herein:
"4. That the Opp. Party is working as a Clerk at Danagadi Block. By and by the torture became more severe on the petitioner and on the direction of the O.P., his family members did not provide food, clothing, medicine and neglected the petitioner. Even the O.P. and his family members stopped talking with the petitioner, still then bearing all the torture and pain the petitioner stayed at her in-laws' house. When the torture became more violent by the O.P. side, she came to my house and latter the O.P. came to my house and took back the petitioner to his house giving words not to commit further torture in future. I had also been to the house of the O.P. three to four times and requested to the O.P. and his parents that I am not in a position to fulfil their further demand, but they did not listen my request and told me to fulfil their demand as early as possible."
Cross-examination (Page 51 of brief para-13) "After marriage the petitioner stayed in her matrimonial home for about one year. It is not a fact that she stayed for six months in her matrimonial home. It is not a fact that she stayed for six months in her matrimonial home. It is not a fact that para 3 of my affidavit is false. I have not RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 7 of 18 filed relevant papers to show the monthly income of the O.P. It is not a fact that the allegations like she was not giving food and medicine is also false. I do not remember the exact dates when I visited the matrimonial house of the petitioner. It is not a fact that the petitioner left her matrimonial home with her mother and brother to her parental house. I not lodged FIR in connection with allegation leveled in para 8 regarding viral of nude photos."
14. Further, this Court has to consider the examination in chief of P.W.3 (running page 54 para-3 of brief), that has been considered by the learned Judge, Family Court to award maintenance.
"3. Kapilendra Rath and I, myself are working as L.I.C. agents since long. So Kapilendra Rath and myself had free access to each other's house. Once in the year 2011 the father of the O.P., namely Gadadhar Ratha requested me to select a girl for the marriage of his son (O.P.). I assured him to give a good proposal. Then I consulted with Kapilendra Ratha, the elder father of the O.P., and we both tried to select a good girl for the O.P. In the mean time we came in contact with the father of the petitioner, namely, Biranchi Narayan Panda of village- Khandara, Jajpur and gave marriage proposal of his daughter, the petitioner with the O.P. The father of the petitioner having good faith on us agreed to give marriage of the petitioner with the O.P. I, myself and Kapilendra ventilated the said fact to the father of the O.P. At that time the father of the O.P. told us that his son, the O.P. is serving as a Clerk at Danagadi Block and receiving salary of Rs.30,000/- per month and also he is earning about Rs.1,00,000/- from agricultural sources. Finding a good proposal, I convinced the father of the petitioner to give his daughter in marriage with the O.P. and accordingly the father of the petitioner agreed with my proposal. Thereafter, the family members and relations of both sides sat together and decided about the dowry. As per the demand of the father and family members of RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 8 of 18 the O.P., the father of the petitioner agreed to fulfill the same."
Cross examination of P.W.3 (Page 57, running page 63 of brief para-12).
"I am not the mediator in the marriage solemnized between the parties. It is not a fact that Kapilendra Rath is the elder father of the OP. It is not a fact that I had acquaintance with said Kapilendra Rath due to our relationship in LIC work and that he had never given proposal of marriage to us. I have not verified any documentary evidence to show that the OP was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It is not a fact that the father of the OP had disclosed to me that the OP was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. It is not a fact that there was discussions, as regards dowry and that the petitioner's family members gave dowry in accordance with the demand of the OP and that the father of the petitioner gave dowry to the OP except some marriageable gifts."
15. Having perused affidavit dated 10.12.2025 filed by the petitioner herein, copy of which has been annexed marked as Annexure-3 series disclosing assets and liabilities in terms of Rajnesh v. Neha and another2, the examination in chief of P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.3 and their cross-examination done on behalf of the petitioner herein; by applying the tests laid down in Shamima Farooqui (supra) it has to be and is held that there is nothing perceptible which would show that the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court is a sanctuary of errors. Further it has to be and is held that the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.
16. As observed by the Hon'ble apex Court, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with, 2 AIR 2021 SC 569 : 2020 INSC 631 : (2021) 2 SCC 324 RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 9 of 18 for the reason, that this Court would arrive at a different or another conclusion.
Now further it has to be held that this Court would not interfere when in the case at hand substantial justice has been done and the awarded amount of ₹8,000/- per month is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife and it deserves reduction.
17. Regarding the liability of the husband to pay the maintenance, paragraphs 16, 17, 18 of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in Shamima Farooqui (supra) are reproduced herein :
16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , it has been ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6) "6. ... Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] ."
RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 10 of 18
17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.
18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 :
AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus :
(SCC OnLine Del para 7)
7. ... an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him."
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
18. On applying the above principles to the present case, it is apparent that the present petitioner husband being able bodied, has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife, he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough. It was for him to show cogent grounds to the learned Judge, Family Court to hold that for reasons beyond his control he is unable to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation. Before the learned Judge, Family Court he has not made any RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 11 of 18 such endeavour. There was no legally permissible ground shown before the learned Judge, Family Court to accept the plea of the petitioner that he would not pay any maintenance.
19. Nature and scope of S.125 CrPC (since repealed and substituted by pari materia provision contained in S.144 of the BNSS, 2023), the legislative policy behind the enactment and the constitutional philosophy that has guided such enactment have been elaborately discussed in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra).
The paragraphs relied upon and applied for deciding the present revision application are reproduced herein (from SCC Online web edition print) :
"(d) Section 125 CrPC
32. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be claimed by a person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong. The purpose and object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 CrPC is predicated on two conditions : (i) the husband has sufficient means; and (ii) "neglects" to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors.
33. The remedy provided by Section 125 is summary in nature, and the substantive disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage can be determined by a civil court/Family Court in an appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
34. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 563] the Supreme Court held that under Section 125(1) RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 12 of 18 CrPC only a wife who is "unable to maintain herself" is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held : (SCC p. 392, para 19) "19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments."
(emphasis supplied)
35. Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs 500 "in the whole". In view of the rising costs of living and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs 500 was done away with by the 2001 Amendment Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act states that the wife had to wait for several years before being granted maintenance. Consequently, the Amendment Act introduced an express provision for grant of "interim maintenance". The Magistrate was vested with the power to order the respondent to make a monthly allowance towards interim maintenance during the pendency of the petition. Under sub-section (2) of Section 125, the court is conferred with the discretion to award payment of maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of the application. Under the third proviso to the amended Section 125, the application for grant of interim maintenance must be disposed of as far as possible within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
37. In Chaturbhuj v.Sita Bai [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 13 of 18 to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.
38. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr PC are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena[Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute.
xxx xxx xxx III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 14 of 18 position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications.
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde [Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the following RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 15 of 18 factors to be considered for determining maintenance :
(SCC OnLine Del para 8) "1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of the claimant.
4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain.
5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.
6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.
7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.
10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.
11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act."
xxx xxx xxx Discussion and Directions
109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application.
xxx xxx xxx V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 16 of 18
114. Enforcement of the order of maintenance is the most challenging issue, which is encountered by the applicants. If maintenance is not paid in a timely manner, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation. Execution petitions usually remain pending for months, if not years, which completely nullifies the object of the law. The Bombay High Court in Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva held that :
(SCC OnLine Bom para 7) "7. ... The direction of interim alimony and expenses of litigation under Section 24 is one of urgency and it must be decided as soon as it is raised and ... the law takes care that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds."
xxx xxx xxx xxx
117. Section 125(3) CrPC provides that if the party against whom the order of maintenance is passed fails to comply with the order of maintenance, the same shall be recovered in the manner as provided for fines, and the Magistrate may award sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or until payment, whichever is earlier.
xxx xxx xxx
VI. Final Directions
127. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B -- I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in part B-IV above."
20. Following the above well settled legal principles, it has to be and is held that in view of the position in law it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife, he cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial constraint as long as he is able bodied, educated and capable of earning.
RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 17 of 18
21. In the present case, before the learned Family Court the case of the petitioner was not that he is incapable of earning, rather he miserably failed to disprove the specific statement that he had earning of ₹30,000/- per month. He also failed to disprove that his agricultural income is ₹1,00,000/-. To deny the employment and earning therefrom the opposite party-husband did not bother to adduce any positive evidence.
In Shamima Farooqui (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court commenting on reduction of amount of maintenance from ₹4,000/- to ₹2,000/- by order of the High Court observed "it only reflects the non-application of mind and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order..."
22. In considered opinion of this Court no case is made out for revision of the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur dated 12.12.2005 passed in Criminal Proceeding No. 216 of 2023 in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
23. In view of the above discussions the application seeking revision fails and is dismissed.
Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 31st March, 2026/dutta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 10-Apr-2026 18:24:04 RPFAM NO. 65 of 2026 Page 18 of 18