Orissa High Court
Lingaraj Samal vs Ritanjali Bisoyee ... ... Opp. Party on 13 February, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.406 of 2025
A Revision Petition under Section-19 of the Family Court
Act.
---------------
Lingaraj Samal ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Ritanjali Bisoyee ... ... Opp. Party
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Kadar Mohammad,
Advocate
For Opp. Party :
------------------
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decided on 13th February, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The petitioner-husband in the marriage has filed the revision application challenging the judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur.
2. By the said judgment, Crl. No.47 of 2022 filed by the wife in the marriage under section 125(1) of Cr.P.C. (since Page 1 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025 repealed and substituted by the parimateria provision contained in section 144 of BNSS, 2023) came to be allowed.
The learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur granted payment of monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) per month from the date of filing of the application on 08.02.2022, though the amount prayed for was Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) per month. Litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) was directed to be paid instead of Rs.15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only) as prayed for.
3. The petitioner has opted to remain in default of the direction of payment of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) per month which is due to be paid from the date of filing of the application i.e. 08.02.2022. The total amount due till 08.02.2026 comes to Rs.10,000 x 48 (months) = Rs.4,80,000/- (rupees four lakhs eighty thousand only).
4. After the learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions, he was asked whether the petitioner is willing or has secured the amount due that is in the nature of a money decree for issuance of notice.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per instructions received from the petitioner, the petitioner is not willing to pay, he disputes the marriage.
5. In response thereto, the learned counsel was asked:
while considering an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., what is the scope of going into the aspect of Page 2 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025 marriage if disputed by the husband; the learned counsel in response refers to section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C. which is reproduced herein:
"(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an 3[allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent."
6. Upon such submission being made, learned counsel was asked to show before this Court the written statement of the petitioner disputing the marriage and the evidence adduced before the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur for consideration by the said Court.
In response, it is submitted that copy of the written statement has not been provided to the learned counsel for which he cannot reflect upon the written statement to answer the query whether the marriage was disputed before the learned trial Court or not.
7. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the issue regarding existence of marriage has been dealt with by the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in paragraph 10 of the judgment which is reproduced herein:
"10. So far as the entitlement of the petitioner for maintenance is concerned, the petitioner being the legally married wife of the O.P. and when she has proved her inability to maintain herself and the O.P.- husband who on the other hand is proved to have neglected to provide for her maintenance in spite having sufficient Page 3 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025 means, the O.P. cannot be excused from discharging his legal obligations only on the ground of non-consummation of the marriage. As evident from the evidence of the petitioner that after one month of her happy married life she was subjected to torture and harassment for further dowry. The O.P. and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry presented at the time of the marriage. At the instigations of his sisters, brothers and father she was subjected to torture by the O.P.. Finally, she was forcibly removed from their house. Finding no other alternative, she placed her grievance before Odisha State Commission for Women. The evidence of the petitioner is corroborated by the evidence of her mother, who was examined as P.W.2.
On the other hand, denying the allegations of torture and harassment, the O.P. advanced his specific evidence that only two days after their marriage the petitioner left the matrimonial home voluntarily deserting this O.P. However, he has admitted that the petitioner had approached the Odisha State Commission for Women and as per the notice from the Commission he made his appearance and as per their direction he had pay Rs.3,000/- (Three Thousands) towards the maintenance of the petitioner for 25 months. He further testified that at no point of time the petitioner was subjected to any torture and harassment and she was never forcibly driven out from the matrimonial home. The O.P. has also adduced the evidence of one of his cousin in support of his contentions, who was examined as O.P.W.2. The evidence of the O.P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of the O.P. The Section.125(4) of the Cr.P.C. puts an embargo on the right of the wife to seek the relief of maintenance if she is living in adultery, or if without any sufficient reason she refuses to Page 4 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025 live with her husband or when they are living separately by mutual consent.
From the rival contentions it is evident that the main challenge to the entitlement of the petitioner is that she has voluntarily left the house of the O.P. without any sufficient reason. However, no such plausible reasons are advanced by the O.P. as to why the petitioner- wife would raise false allegations of torture and harassment against her husband keeping her marriage and entire future at stake. Further, if the petitioner-wife had indeed been allowed with one, conducive atmosphere in her matrimonial home, she could not have approached the State Commission for women for redressal of her grievances. The available materials on record rather lends credence to the statement of the petitioner. Hence, it can be assumed that the separate living by the petitioner-wife is not by her choice but under compelling circumstances created by the O.P. and his family members. So, the petitioner is absolutely entitled for her claim towards maintenance."
8. From the judgment of the learned trial Court, it can also be seen that the learned trial Court has relied on the following evidences:
"Witnesses Examined on behalf of the petitioner:
P.W.1. Smt. Ritanjali Bisoyee. P.W.2. Smt. Namita Bisoyee. Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Opp. Party:
O.P.W.1. Sri Lingaraj Samal. O.P.W.2. Sri Rajendra Kumar Samal. List of Exhibits marked for the Petitioner: Ext.1. Marriage Invitation Card. Ext.2 to 2/6. Marriage Photographs of both the parties.Page 5 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025
Ext.3. Joint Photographs of both the parties.
Ext.4 & 4/1. Net generated copy of Pay Slips of the O.P. for the month of October, 2023 and November, 2023 respectively. List of Exhibits marked for the Opp. party:
NIL"
9. Taking note of the exhibits marked before the learned Judge, Ext.1- Marriage Invitation Card, Ext.2 to Ext.2/6- Marriage Photographs of both the parties and Ext.3-Joint Photographs of both the parties, the learned counsel was requested that how the petitioner had disproved or had made any effort to disprove the said exhibits.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has no immediate answer.
10. From the judgment, it is apparent that no material was brought before the learned trial Court to disprove the marriage. The statements of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 substantiated the claim for maintenance. The statements of O.P.W.1 and O.P.W.2 produced by the petitioner before the learned trial Court did not enure to his benefits to deny the claim.
11. The learned trial Court has relied on the Ext.4 & Ext.4/1, those are copies of the Pay Slips of the petitioner for the month of October, 2023 and November, 2023 downloaded from the official website to arrive at the source of income of the petitioner who was the Opp. Party.
12. In Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324, it has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the amount Page 6 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025 directed to be paid in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is in the nature of money decree. The paragraphs of the said judgment relied upon and applied by this Court for consideration and adjudication of the case at hand are reproduced herein (from SCC Print):
"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.
Page 7 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 202514. 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 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."
xxx xxx xxx
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.
Page 8 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 202539. The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in 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.
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 Page 9 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025 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.
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:
Page 10 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 202590.1. 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, howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the claim of maintenance.
Page 11 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 202590.4. 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 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.
Page 12 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025xxx xxx xxx Discussion and Directions on Enforcement of orders of Maintenance
125. The order or decree of maintenance may be enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the provisions which are available for enforcing a money decree, including civil detention, attachment of property, etc. as provided by various provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order 21.
126. Striking off the defence of the respondent is an order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the courts find default to be wilful and contumacious, particularly to a dependent unemployed wife, and minor children. Contempt proceedings for wilful disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate court.
xxx xxx xxx
(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.
Page 13 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025(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.
xxx xxx xxx
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."
[underlined to supply emphasis]
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not willing to secure the amount awarded by the learned trial Court, notice by this Court to the Opp. Party in the present revision application can be issued.
The said submission being untenable in law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra) has to be and is rejected. For sustaining the challenge the petitioner has to do his part and secure the decree as mandated by law and precedence.
14. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan: (2015) 5 SCC 705: (at paragraph 20 of SCC Print), the scope of Page 14 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025 interference by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction has been delineated which 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]
15. Though the case is listed for fresh admission, in considered opinion of this Court for issuing notice to the opposite party-wife, this Court has to apply the tests laid down in Shamima Farooqui (supra) and has to satisfy itself prima facie the order dated 15.09.2025 should indicate that:
(i) whether the order passed by the learned Family Judge is manifestly perverse;
(ii) whether there is anything perceptible which is to show that the order is sanctuary of errors;Page 15 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025
(iii) whether the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record;
(iv) even if all the above three points are answered in favour of the petitioner who is challenging, the revisional Court should not interfere because the revisional Court would arrive at a different or another conclusion;
(v) whether substantial justice has been done by the learned court which has passed the order.
16. Now considering the case at hand the answer has to be and is 'no' for all the propositions enumerated above. Rather, it is found that the order passed by the learned court which is impugned is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and substantial justice has been done.
Further the petitioner is not inclined to secure the amount directed to be paid to the opposite party-wife and the child from the wedlock during pendency of this petition.
17. Applying the said parameters as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui (supra), it has to be held that this Court cannot interfere in the judgment, prima facie there being no material to do so.
Further, the unwillingness of the petitioner to honor the decree without any reasonable ground or cause and also the unwillingness to secure the amount awarded before this Court for prosecuting the revision comes in the way of the matter being entertained.
Page 16 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025The judgment that is being rendered does not affect the rights of the Opp. Party in any manner for which notices are not issued to Opp. Party.
18. The petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
19. Copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur to be kept in the records of the Criminal Proceeding No.47 of 2022.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 13th February, 2026/Rajesh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Mar-2026 19:13:27 Page 17 of 17 RPFAM No.406 of 2025