The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.155 of 2024 Millan Kumar Tripathy …. Petitioner Mr. Ramakanta Panda, Advocate -Versus- Minanayana Dash …. Opposite party Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 01.09.2025 Order No. 11. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment dated 27th February, 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2023 as at Annexure-1 of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, whereby, the interim maintenance allowed in terms of Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.V. Act’) with an amount of Rs.3000/- further enhanced to Rs.10,000/- on the grounds inter alia that the same is on the higher side and excessive and on such other grounds stated. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party is highly qualified and an MBA and therefore, the enhancement vis-à-vis the interim maintenance Page 1 of 5 by the learned Court below is unjustified. It is further submitted that since the wife is highly qualified and cannot sit idle and considering the fact that the opposite party is an MBA and may earn handsomely, the amount of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the D.V. Act should be reduced taking into account the income of the petitioner. In support of such an argument, the following decisions, such as, Madan Kumar Satpathy Vrs. Priyadarshini Pati in RPFAM No.417 of 2023 dated 7th February, 2025 and of the Supreme Court in Bhushan Kumar Meen Vrs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur decided on 20th April, 2009 in Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2009 are placed reliance on with the contention that the opposite party having a qualification of MBA and at present sitting idle should not be allowed maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. 4. On the contrary, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the petitioner is having an income between Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month and his parents were Central Government employees and pensioners and considering the same, the learned Court below rightly enhanced the amount of interim maintenance to Rs.10,000/-. The further submission is that the petitioner admitted the above facts while being examined before the Court of first instance in D.V. Criminal Misc. Case No.410 of 2022 and while claiming so, he produced a copy of the deposition him having been examined as O.P.W. 1 therein. The contention is that the learned Court below did not commit any serious error in enhancing the monthly maintenance to Rs.10,000/-. It is also submitted that Page 2 of 5 there is no material on record either in pleading or evidence regarding the income of the opposite party and the same has been taken judicial notice of by the learned Court below while disposing of the appeal, hence, the impugned judgment at Annexure-1 in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2023 does not suffer any legal infirmity and therefore, not to be disturbed. 5. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner is having an income between Rs.58,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month as admitted by him while being examined before the Court of first instance. It is not in denial either that the parents of the petitioner were Central Government employees and after having availed VRS, both of them are pensioners. It is also admitted by the petitioner while being examined that the family is having landed property as well. It is alleged that the opposite party is highly qualified and hence, not entitled to enhancement with regard to the interim maintenance, however, the same is not supported by any pleading or evidence from the side of the petitioner. No material is on record to accept the plea that the opposite party is having any income at present even though she is highly qualified being an MBA. Considering the above facts and recording the submission of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party that the proceeding in D.V. Criminal Misc. Case No.410 of 2022 is on the verge of disposal, this Court is of the view that the interim maintenance enhanced to Rs.10,000/- is not to be interfered with for the present. 6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party has been allowed monthly maintenance Page 3 of 5 of Rs.8000/- by the learned Family Court, Rourkela. In response to the above, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the said amount is to be adjusted and is not over and above the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/-, which is quite obvious. 7. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and in absence of any such pleading or material evidence or evidence on record, the opposite party having any independent income currently and taking cognizance of the fact that the petitioner is a Central Government employee having an income between Rs.58,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month, this Court reaches at such a conclusion that such an amount of Rs.10,000/- could be said to be not unreasonable. The above conclusion with maintenance is as an interim measure. At the same time, this Court is of the view that all such defences available to the petitioner including the challenge to the demand on maintenance from the side of the opposite party are to be left open for a decision by the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh. In other words, this Court, for the present, is not in favour disturbing the order of maintenance. 8. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of leaving it open for the petitioner to defend the order of the interim maintenance of Section 23 of the D.V. Act for an amount of Rs.10,000/- with all such grounds available for consideration of the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, who having Page 4 of 5 regard to the evidence received on record to proceed and to dispose of D.V. Criminal Misc. Case No.410 of 2022 as per and in accordance with law independently examining the quantum of maintenance without being influenced by the observations made herein above. 10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Alok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 02-Sep-2025 20:07:53 Page 5 of 5