Orissa High Court
Rabi Narayan Mishra vs Harapriya Acharya @ on 12 February, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 183 of 2022
An application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.
Rabi Narayan Mishra .... Petitioner
Versus
Harapriya Acharya @
Mishra and another .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case :
For Petitioner : Mr. Biswa Prakash Dhal, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Suraj Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 12.02.2026 Date of Judgment : 12.02.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.A. No. 67 of 2026 and RPFAM No. 183 of 2022 PER JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHR SAHOO :
1. Petitioner-husband is before this Court challenging the judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri.
By the said judgment the petition filed by the wife and the minor child then aged about 2 years seeking monthly RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 1 of 12 maintenance under section 125,Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by pari materia provision contained in BNSS, 2023) was allowed. However, instead of granting maintenance of ₹15,000/- as prayed for, ₹3,000/- per month was directed to be paid for wife and ₹2,000/- per month to the minor child from the date of application i.e. 16.09.2017.
2. The I.A. No. 67 of 2026 has been filed by the wife and minor child seeking variation of interim order interdicting the execution of judgment directing payment of maintenance.
3. The judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court is challenged in this revision application.
4. By order dated 20.02.2024 when the matter was listed for the first time, the entire amount of money remaining unpaid though due since 2017, the coordinate Bench had directed for deposit of ₹50,000/- in the Registry as a pre-condition for issuance of notice.
5. By order dated 13.11.2024 another coordinate Bench allowed the petitioner to take back the Demand Draft which by then was outdated and ₹50,000/- was directed to be paid to the opposite party. By the said order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench the execution proceeding filed by the opposite party for getting amount of maintenance which was about Rupees three lakh by then was interdicted by directing stay of (Non-bailable Warrant) (NBW) and (Distress Warrant) (DW) issued by the executing court vide order dated 13.09.2024 in Criminal Proceeding (Execution Case) RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 2 of 12 No.71 of 2023 then pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri.
6. In the I.A. it is stated supported by affidavit and submitted by the decree holder wife in the marriage and child represented by mother that apart from the amount of ₹50,000/-, nothing has been paid.
7. As the petition is heard on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner candidly states that the petitioner has not paid any other amount in any other proceeding which can be a relevant consideration.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has very good reasons for not to pay amount and remain in default of the direction for payment of maintenance passed by the learned Judge, Family Court.
8. From 16.09.2017 till today i.e. 16.01.2026 for the 89 months, the amount of maintenance due comes to 89x₹5,000/- = ₹4,45,000/-.
Apparently, petitioner has taken advantage of pendency of the present application i.e. RPFAM before this Court has sought stay of warrant and stalled the execution.
9. In Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 :
2020 INSC 631 : (2021) 2 SCC 324, it has been held and laid down that the amount directed to be paid as maintainable in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is in the nature of money decree. The relevant paragraphs those are applied by this Court to decide and arrive at conclusion are reproduced herein and underlined.
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 3 of 12 "12. Given the backdrop of the facts of the present case, which reveal that the application for interim maintenance under Section 125 CrPC has remained pending before the courts for seven years now, and the difficulties encountered in the enforcement of orders passed by the courts, as the wife was constrained to move successive applications for enforcement from time to time, we deem it appropriate to frame guidelines on the issue of maintenance, which would cover overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of interim maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of orders of maintenance.
Guidelines/Directions on maintenance
13. Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that:
"15. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children."
Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which envisages a positive role for the State in fostering change towards the empowerment of women, led to the enactment of various legislations from time to time.
14. Krishna Iyer, J. in his judgment in Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] held that the object of maintenance laws is : (SCC p. 74, para 9) "9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 4 of 12 construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause -- the cause of the derelicts."
38. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC 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 II. Payment of Interim Maintenance
62. The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24-9-2001), and the third proviso to Section 125 CrPC (inserted vide Act 50 of 2001 w.e.f. 24-9-2001) provide that the proceedings for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of notice on the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory provisions granting a time-bound period for disposal of proceedings for interim maintenance, we find that applications remain pending for several years in most of the cases. The delays are caused by various factors, such as tremendous docket pressure on the Family Courts, repetitive adjournments sought by RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 5 of 12 parties, enormous time taken for completion of pleadings at the interim stage itself, etc. Pendency of applications for maintenance at the interim stage for several years defeats the very object of the legislation.
63. At present, the issue of interim maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings, where some amount of guesswork or rough estimation takes place, so as to make a prima facie assessment of the amount to be awarded. It is often seen that both parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the correct details, and suppress vital information, which makes it difficult for the Family Courts to make an objective assessment for grant of interim maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a corresponding tendency by the husband to conceal his actual income. It has therefore become necessary to lay down a procedure to streamline the proceedings, since a dependent wife, who has no other source of income, has to take recourse to borrowings from her parents/relatives during the interregnum to sustain herself and the minor children, till she begins receiving interim maintenance.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Where wife is earning some income
90. The courts have held that if the wife is earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being awarded maintenance by the husband. The courts have provided guidance on this issue in the following judgments:
90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v. Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 308; See also the decision of the Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794 (Kar)], this Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. The court has to determine RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 6 of 12 whether the income of the wife is sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in the matrimonial home.
[Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere survival. [Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252 : 2015 Cri LJ 3451].
90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 :
(2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate degree, and was employed as a teacher in Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention that since the wife had sufficient income, she would not require financial assistance from the husband. The Supreme Court repelled this contention, and held that merely because the wife was earning some income, it could not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 589], held that neither the mere potential to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 7 of 12 amount of his income, an adverse inference may be drawn by the court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.
(d) Maintenance of Minor children
91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable amount to be awarded for extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties.
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 RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 8 of 12 minor children. Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate court.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
130. For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B -- III of the judgment. The aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the court concerned may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor(s) which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(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.
(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 CrPC, 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.
134. A copy of this judgment be communicated by the Secretary General of this Court, to the Registrars of all High Courts, who would in turn circulate it to all the District Courts in the States. It shall be displayed on the website of all District Courts/Family Courts/Courts of Judicial Magistrates for awareness and implementation."
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 9 of 12
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has the predicament of not receiving instruction from the petitioner.
11. Petitioner is enjoying the stay order granted by this Court. The execution lunched by the wife and child is not progressing. In considered opinion of this Court such situation by intervention of this Court would be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra).
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also asked whether to stall the further proceeding in the pending Execution Proceeding, petitioner will deposit any amount. Even after more than three years of filing of the application, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has no instruction in that regard.
The learned counsel for the petitioner takes the plea that the petitioner should be given enough time to comply with the decree. In considered opinion of this Court, after the petition was filed on 28.02.2022 before this Court, about four years have passed, which even in most conservative estimate is enough of time and this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction contrary to law and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to extend any further time in any manner whatsoever.
13. In Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi : (2021) 6 SCC 418 it has been held and laid down by the larger bench of the Apex Court that execution RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 10 of 12 should not be kept pending. At paragraph 42 of SCC it has been laid down
42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions:
xxx xxx xxx 42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.
42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree. 42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant.
xxx xxx xxx 42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub- rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A. 42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term "... in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf" should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 11 of 12 42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.
42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law."
14. In view of discussions made above regarding the facts of the case and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court as indicated above, the order dated 13.11.2024 is modified. The learned executing court shall proceed with the execution. I.A. is favoured and disposed of.
Copy of this order shall be communicated to the learned executing court by the Registry.
15. List in the week commencing 23.03.2026. Liberty to mention.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Signature Not Verified Orissa High Court, Cuttack Digitally Signed The 12th February, 2026/dutta Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 06-Mar-2026 19:21:13 RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022 Page 12 of 12