The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 301 of 2024 Sankalpa Mohanty Petitioner Mr. D.K. Panda, Advocate …. -Versus- Bhagabati Mohanty …. Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D. Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No.
Decision
ORDER 13.09.2024 01. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2024 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Designated Court under the OPID Act, Cuttack on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party deserted the petitioner and thereafter, did not return and presently, staying with her parents. It is further submitted that the opposite party was in employment and admitted to have an income of Rs. 7,000/- a month, hence, therefore, she is not entitled to further maintenance from the petitioner. The contention is that the learned Appellate Court did not consider and appreciate the evidence on record, inasmuch as, the petitioner was inclined to adduce evidence in support of the liabilities in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 which Page 1 of 4 was, however, not allowed and the proceeding was disposed of with a direction for him to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards interim maintenance and the same is, therefore, liable to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, justifies the impugned decision under Annexure-1 by claiming that opposite party is no more in employment and the petitioner did not file the affidavit vis-a-vis rights and liabilities before the learned Appellate Court and that apart, the opposite party does not have any means of source and survival, hence, it was perfectly justified in allowing interim maintenance in terms of Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act. It is claimed by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel that the opposite party is presently staying in a rented house and needs financial support. 5. Perused the impugned judgment as at Annexure-1. In fact, the court of first instance declined any such maintenance in favour of the opposite party which was challenged before the learned Appellate Court, which while considering the pleadings on record, unsettled the decision of the learned JMFC (City), Cuttack in D.V. Case No. 57 of 2022 and directed the petitioner to pay the opposite party a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards monthly maintenance. 6. In course of hearing, on an enquiry by the Court, it is revealed by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite party that the petitioner is not paying any amount towards interim maintenance despite such an order under Annexure-1. 7. In view of the decision in Rajnesh (supra) as the Apex Court outlined the guidelines with a direction to the parties to submit affidavits vis-à-vis individual rights and liabilities before considering any such request for maintenance and other reliefs under the PWDV Page 2 of 4 Act, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was allowed to do so but failed to avail such an opportunity so revealed from Annexure-1. No reason is assigned by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner as to what prevailed upon the petitioner by not filing the affidavit stating the rights and liabilities in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra) but having regard to the fact that the pleadings have been gone through with an order and a decision for interim maintenance, the Court is of the view that the petitioner should be directed to pay the opposite party a sum of Rs. 6,000/- a month as an interim measure. The Court is of the further view that the matter needs a remand to the learned Appellate Court for full and strict compliance of the directions of the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra) in order to enable both the sides to submit individual liabilities in particular. It is brought to the notice of the Court by Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party that there has been compliance of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court with an affidavit filed by the opposite party. Nevertheless, considering the challenge to the interim maintenance, for a proper hearing and final order, the Court is inclined to direct both the sides to ensure such compliance with affidavits to be filed stating the rights and liabilities in specific as the same would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice. 8. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered. In the result, revision petition stands disposed of with the direction and liberty allowed in favour of the parties to file affidavits and in the case of the opposite party, an additional affidavit to be furnished in compliance of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra), which shall on being received, learned Appellate Court shall deal with it and to take a fresh decision with regard to interim maintenance in terms of Section 23 of the PWDV Page 3 of 4 Act followed by an order as soon as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that till such time, as has been directed, the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs. 6,000/- as maintenance till final order is passed by learned Appellate Court in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2024, which is hereby restored to file for its disposal according to law. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion either way and therefore, the learned Appellate Court shall deal with the matter on merit. 10. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. Judge (R.K. Pattanaik) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 18-Sep-2024 12:02:17 Page 4 of 4