Hemanta Kumar Ray vs Romani Das @ Ray & .... Opp. Parties on 11 March, 2026

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Hemanta Kumar Ray vs Romani Das @ Ray & .... Opp. Parties on 11 March, 2026

07. 1. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that RPFAM No.33 of 2026 filed by the Opposite Party-wife in the marriage was directed to be listed along with the present RPFAM. Being present in V.C., the learned counsel seeks adjournment on the ground of personal difficulty.

Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties submitted that the direction was to list both the matters after appearance of the Opposite Parties in the said RPFAM.

2. The petitioner-husband is before this Court challenging the judgment dated 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Jajpur in Criminal Proceeding No.268 of 2019.

3. The said Criminal Proceeding No.268 of 2019 was filed by the Opposite Party-wife in the marriage Page 1 of 20 and the minor child aged about one year eight months represented through mother seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand only) for the wife and Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) for the child along with Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

4. The said petition was favoured by the learned Family Court, however, directing payment of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) to the petitioner-wife in the marriage and Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) per month each for the child towards maintenance from the date of application i.e. 09.12.2019.

5. Thereafter, RPFAM No.300 of 2023 was filed by the husband before this Court.

The said RPFAM was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur for fresh adjudication of the petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the judgment of this Court dated 16.05.2024.

6. Thereafter, the matter has again been adjudicated by the learned Family Court for coming to the conclusion by judgment dated 06.01.2025. This is now the second round of challenge to the judgment in application U/S-125 of Cr.P.C. that has initiated in the year 2019, the following has been discussed for determining the monthly maintenance by the learned Page 2 of 20 Judge, Family Court, Jajpur at Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 which being relevant are considered and are reproduced herein:

"ANALYSIS

9. Comprehensive analysis of cumulative evidence of the parties illuminates that the petitioner No.1, PW 1 entered into matrimonial allegiance with the OP, OPW 1 and after successfully consummating their marriage, they were blessed with male child, petitioner No.2 and PW 1 was forcibly deserted from her matrimonial home by OPW 1 and his family members demanding more dowry from her. The counter evidence adduced by OPW 1 to disprove the allegations of PW 1 was proved unsuccessful for which PW 1 was allowed maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month and petitioner No. 2 was allowed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from OPW 2.

10. Being aggrieved with such order, OPW 1 moved to the Hon'ble High Court and obtained order for revaluation of maintenance after synthesizing all factual circumstances in connection with granting equitable maintenance. In pursuance of such order, the parties adduced the respective evidence and filed certain documents on their behalfs. After careful analysis of all such evidence both ocular and documentary, the forceful desertion of PW 1 from her matrimonial home stands unshaken and she is now desperately living in her parental house with her minor son who is now prosecuting her studies. Bereft of unnecessary narrations as regards the forceful desertion of PW 1 from her matrimonial home on the more dowry, it is important to analyze whether the maintenance awarded in favour of PW 1 is an equitable disposition.

11. In so far as consideration of equitable maintenance is considered, the evidence given by both.

Page 3 of 20

i) Income of the parties.

12. Resolving all controversies regarding the income of the OP-husband, latest salary slip for the month of August, 2024 was procured from the DDO of his office wherein net pay of the OP is reflected to be Rs.1,58,407/- after deductions from total earning for sum of Rs.301402.91. The salary slip is not strenuously disputed by the OP to take a different view for calculation maintenance. Previous maintenance was estimated upon the salary slip of the OP for the month of January, 2021 showing his total earning to be Rs.318167.72 and net pay of Rs.41252/- wherein deduction was more. Both the salary slips reveal total earning is approximately same. As such, in the changing circumstances, the latest salary slip of the OP is the best piece of evidence for reasonable calculation of equitable maintenance.

13. The case of the OP that the petitioner, PW 1 is employed and she is earning Rs.35,000/- as consolidation pay for her employment in the office of Chief District Agriculture Office, Jajpur under CDP MLIP scheme and such employment was temporary for only five years and Ext. D-6 does not reveal the date of employment of PW 1 and date of expiry of her service, however such income of PW 1 is a factor responsible for consideration of maintenance.

ii) Income from landed properties.

14. For securing higher maintenance, PW 1 further evidences that the OP purchased a flat at Ahamedabad for consideration of Rs.41,42,250/- as evidenced from the deed of conveyance marked as Ext.P-2/PW 1 and the assertion of PW 1 that some income is accruing upon the OP and the OP is also earning Rs.7,000/- per month as house rent from leasing out the house standing recorded in his name at Rahemanpur within Korei police station limits as evidenced from the house rent agreement marked under Ext.P-3/PW Page 4 of 20

1. Such document is also not strongly objected. The contention of OPW 2 that a cash of Rs.8 lakhs had been deposited in the account of the petitioner No.1, PW 1 as evidenced from an endorsement obtained from Bandhan Bank Ltd. Jajpur Town branch marked under Ext.D-l/OPW 1 is not clearly revealing the source of her deposit to examine the financial status of PW 1 nor what has happened to such amount so far and whether such amount had been fully exhausted or still remaining in her account is not surfaced out to evaluate its contribution while calculating maintenance. It is apt to mention that there is no evidence from OPW 1 that PW 1 is owner of certain landed properties for assessment of her financial strength, it is true that her father is a retired defence personnel but, his pension cannot be included in the calculation of maintenance in her favour and in favour of her son as she is a married daughter without physical disabilities.

iii) Medical expenses.

15. It is the evidence of PW 1 that she had incurred expenses towards her treatment and treatment of her son as evidenced from medical papers/receipts marked under Ext.P-5/PW 1 to Ext. P-7/PW 1. The counter evidence of OPW 2 that he had arranged the treatment of PW 1 and her son as confirmed from the medical papers marked under Ext.D- 2/OPW 1 and Ext.D-3/OPW 1 can't affect maintenance because these documents reveal the treatment much before the case filed for maintenance and the expenditure incurred towards their treatment as it is incumbent upon a dutiful husband to care and maintain his wife and son while they are under his custody and shelter.

16. The other evidence of OPW 2 that his parents due to their old age are also undergoing medication and necessary expenses are also being incurred in that regard as evidenced from Page 5 of 20 the medical papers filed by him marked as Ext.D- 5/0PW 1 also can't influence maintenance as OPW 1 is a retired school teacher and he is receiving pension which may adequate to meet his treatment including the treatment of his wife and there is no evidence to show that they both have undergone serious treatment incurring huge expenditure giving botheration to OPW 2 to contribute towards their treatment. Therefore, such medical papers is never influential in deciding quantum of maintenance. The copy of school register of Xt. Xavier high school showing that the son of PW 1 was admitted into said school and the study expenses was borne by OPW 2 as evidenced from the school register marked as Ext.D-7 has also no relevance as it is a duty of the father to provide proper education to his son and such expenditure, if any has been incurred prior to the filing of maintenance case and thus it has no inseparable nexus with the present circumstances towards calculation of maintenance. Similarly, the air ticket receipt marked under Ext. D-8 of the year 2017 showing that both couple traveled to experience their conjugal love has also no significance in determining maintenance. It is also unnecessary to appreciate that PW 1 received cash of Rs.1.5 lakhs from the father of OPW 2 for solemnization of their marriage upon the backdrop of inter-caste marriage arrangement as evidenced from Ext.D-9 and such transaction is relatable to the year 2017 much before the case instituted for maintenance.

17. On the other hand, PW 1 deposes that she is undergoing treatment incurring huge expenditure and looking into the study expenses of her son who is studying in a highly paid school and she is currently unemployed. It is true that she is an MBA, but not from premier institutions to infer that she might be earning and her present employment was not explored in her evidence. It is certainly an admitted fact that OPW 2 is a Page 6 of 20 Chief geologist earning net pay of Rs.1,58,407/- per month as per latest salary slip and he is also owner of a flat at Ahamedabad and he is earning Rs.7,000/- per month from his house leased out on rent and his father after retirement from Govt. service is now a pension holder."

7. On 23.07.2025, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the grant of maintenance @ Rs.40,000/- were noted by the Co- ordinate Bench. It was submitted that the judgment of the learned Family Court was rendered without following the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha:(2021) 2 SCC 324.

8. The matter was admitted by the Coordinate Bench and notices were issued by order dated 23.07.2025 to the Opp. parties. However on the said date, the amount directed to be paid as maintenance was reduced from Rs.40,000/-(rupees forty thousand only), (i.e. Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) for the wife in the marriage and Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) for the child, to a sum of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) i.e. Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- per month to Opp. Parties as maintenance.

9. Perusal of the plaint as well as copy of the judgment available on the records indicates that the petitioner has not disputed that he is working as Geologist in Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC).

10. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India to obtain Page 7 of 20 instruction from the employer ONGC. The ONGC shall give details of the emoluments received by the petitioner from the date of the petition before the learned Trial Court i.e. 2019.

Copy of the petition as well as copy of this order shall be handed over by the Registry to the learned DSGI to do the needful.

11. Apparently, for any reduction of the amount from Rs.40,000/- as directed taking note of the income of the petitioner by interim order, this Court has to take note of the facts and circumstances regarding income of the petitioner as the learned trial Court has taken note of the salary slip of August,2024 from the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner indicating salary to be Rs.1,58,407/-.

12. The petitioner shall also file affidavit giving the details of his income since 2019 till March, 2026 which shall indicate his gross pay, statutory deduction such as income-tax, provident fund etc. and other deductions which are at his own volition from the year 2019 till March 2026.

13. At this stage, this Court has to and is taking note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha regarding the maintenance awarded in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by the parimateria provision contained in section 144 of BNSS, 2023) is in the nature of money decree.

Page 8 of 20

"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 Page 9 of 20 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 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.

39. The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in Page 10 of 20 relationship for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim under Section 125 CrPC came up for consideration in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha [Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666. This judgment was referred to a larger Bench.] before the Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be entitled to maintenance. A man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term "wife", to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in 2003, which recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage.

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 Page 11 of 20 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 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.

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:

Page 12 of 20

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 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, Page 13 of 20 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 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 Page 14 of 20 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 minor children. Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate court.

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.

Page 15 of 20

(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."

14. Since effectively the execution filed by the Opposite Party has been stayed by interim order dated 23.07.2025, the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi: (2021) 6 SCC 418: AIR 2021 SC Page 16 of 20 2161: has to be and is taken note in which the following guidelines have been issued.

"24. In respect of execution of a decree, Section 47 CPC contemplates adjudication of limited nature of issues relating to execution i.e. discharge or satisfaction of the decree and is aligned with the consequential provisions of Order 21 CPC. Section 47 is intended to prevent multiplicity of suits. It simply lays down the procedure and the form whereby the court reaches a decision. For the applicability of the section, two essential requisites have to be kept in mind. Firstly, the question must be the one arising between the parties and secondly, the dispute relates to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Thus, the objective of Section 47 is to prevent unwanted litigation and dispose of all objections as expeditiously as possible.

25. These provisions contemplate that for execution of decrees, executing court must not go beyond the decree. However, there is steady rise of proceedings akin to a retrial at the time of execution causing failure of realisation of fruits of decree and relief which the party seeks from the courts despite there being a decree in their favour. Experience has shown that various objections are filed before the executing court and the decree-holder is deprived of the fruits of the litigation and the judgment-debtor, in abuse of process of law, is allowed to benefit from the subject-matter which he is otherwise not entitled to.

26. The general practice prevailing in the subordinate courts is that invariably in all execution applications, the courts first issue show-cause notice asking the judgment-debtor as to why the decree should not be executed as is given under Order 21 Rule 22 for certain class of cases. However, this is often misconstrued as the beginning of a new trial.

Page 17 of 20

For example, the judgment-debtor sometimes misuses the provisions of Order 21 Rule 2 and Order 21 Rule 11 to set up an oral plea, which invariably leaves no option with the court but to record oral evidence which may be frivolous. This drags the execution proceedings indefinitely.

27. This is antithesis to the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that in civil suit, all questions and issues that may arise, must be decided in one and the same trial. Order 1 and Order 2 which relate to parties to suits and frame of suits with the object of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings, provides for joinder of parties and joinder of cause of action so that common questions of law and facts could be decided at one go.

42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions:

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. 42.9. The court should allow taking of evidence during the execution proceedings only in exceptional and rare cases where the question of fact could not be decided by resorting to any other expeditious method like appointment of Commissioner or calling for electronic materials including photographs or video with affidavits. 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-

Page 18 of 20

rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A. 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. 42.14. The Judicial Academies must prepare manuals and ensure continuous training through appropriate mediums to the court personnel/staff executing the warrants, carrying out attachment and sale and any other official duties for executing orders issued by the executing courts.

43. We further direct all the High Courts to reconsider and update all the Rules relating to execution of decrees, made under exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 122 CPC, within one year of the date of this order. The High Courts must ensure that the Rules are in consonance with CPC and the above directions, with an endeavour to expedite the process of execution with the use of information technology tools. Until such time these Rules are brought into existence, the above directions shall remain enforceable."

15. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Opp. Party-wife is working, Page 19 of 20 she and the minor child born from the wedlock not entitled for maintenance @ Rs.40,000/- per month.

16. Perusal of the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court indicates that the learned trial Court has taken note of the said aspect.

Whether the wife if is working and has capacity to earn, whether shall be awarded maintenance to be paid by the husband or not is no more res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra).

17. The affidavit as directed shall be filed by the petitioner by 31.03.2026.

18. The matter shall be listed in the week commencing 06.04.2026 along with RPFAM No.33 of 2026.

Name of the learned DSGI shall be indicated in the cause list as well as case brief. He is requested to obtain the details from the employer of the petitioner as directed above and submit the same along with a memo by 30.03.2026.




                                                                    (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Signature Not Verified                                                      Judge
Digitally Signed            Rajesh
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 20-Mar-2026 19:32:02




                                                                                          Page 20 of 20

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court