The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.3288 of 2023 (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Bishnu Prasad Sahoo … Petitioner -versus- Puspanjali Sahoo … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Baral, Advocate For Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.S. Nandy, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:02.04.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Athgarh in IA No.13 of 2020 arising out of MAT Case No.113 of 2019 directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month to the OP-wife w.e.f. February, 2020 as a pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty WP(C) No.3288 of 2023 Page 1 of 7 Thousand) in an application U/S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Susanta Kumar Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner while taking this Court through paragraph-5.1 of the impugned order, submits that although the learned trial Court has taken note of the fact that the petitioner- husband is running a computer institute and imparting computer training to about 100 to 150 students each day and also earning some money from online jobs, but the learned trial Court has not discussed a single word with regard to income of the petitioner-husband while quantifying the maintenance, which is erroneous appreciation of facts. Mr. Baral further submits that although it is mandate of law that disclosure affidavit should have been taken into consideration, but in this case admittedly neither parties have filed disclosure affidavit and, therefore, the impugned order is also liable to be set-aside for want of disclosure affidavit by the parties. WP(C) No.3288 of 2023 Page 2 of 7 3. In giving reply to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Akshyangshu Se. Nandy, learned counsel for the OP-wife while not disputing about non-filing of disclosure affidavits and non-discussion of the income of the petitioner-husband in the impugned order while quantifying the maintenance, but he, however, strongly supports the impugned order on the ground that not only the petitioner is a monied man, but also he is quite capable and self sufficient to pay the maintenance to OP-wife. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, it appears to the Court that the learned trial Court has of course taken note of the fact that the petitioner-husband is running a computer institute and imparting computer training to about 100 to 150 students each day and doing some online jobs from the oral evidence of the petitioner- husband, but it has not discussed anything with regard to the earning of the petitioner-husband. However, fact remains that in a proceeding in the nature of granting pendente lite maintenance and litigation expenses, the WP(C) No.3288 of 2023 Page 3 of 7 Court has to make some discussion with regard to the earning of the spouse and the Court is also not precluded from assessing the income of the spouse by making some guess work, but in this case, there is absolutely no guess or nothing has been stated in the impugned order with regard to the income of the petitioner-husband. Further, it is also an admitted fact that neither parties has filed any disclosure affidavit in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha and another; (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Apex Court has been pleased to observe the following in paragraph Nos.62, 63, 65 and 72.1, which reads as under:-
Decision
“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 interim proceedings disposal maintenance, we that applications find remain pending for several years in most of the cases. The delays are caused by various factors, such as tremendous docket pressure for of WP(C) No.3288 of 2023 Page 4 of 7 the Family Courts, on 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. some amount issue of interim the 63. At present, maintenance is decided on the basis of pleadings, where 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 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. grant for of common application relationship, 65. The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in law marriage, should be required to file a concise interim maintenance with limited pleadings, along with an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets the and court concerned, mandatory requirement. On the basis of pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Liabilities before as for a WP(C) No.3288 of 2023 Page 5 of 7 Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objection assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. 72.1. (a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the Family Court Court/District concerned, as the case may be, throughout the country.” Court/Magistrate’s 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the discussion made by the learned trial Court in the impugned order, this Court considers that the matter requires fresh adjudication in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra) and, accordingly, remits the matter back to the learned trial Court for fresh disposal by giving opportunity to both the parties to file disclosure affidavits within three weeks hence and provide opportunity to them to lead evidence thereon, if required on the facts stated in the disclosure affidavits which shall be completed within four weeks thereafter. WP(C) No.3288 of 2023 Page 6 of 7 6. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly and the impugned order is, hereby, set-aside. It is, however, made clear that till disposal of the IA in the original MAT Case, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month to OP-wife and clear up the arrear maintenance calculated @ Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month in three equal installments by adjusting the earlier payment made. The aforesaid arrangement shall be made till disposal of the IA and the further payment or adjustment in maintenance shall be made after disposal of the IA. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 2nd day of April, 2025/Subhasmita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA DAS Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 04-Apr-2025 18:17:17 WP(C) No.3288 of 2023 Page 7 of 7