The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 1100 of 2024 Madhumita Behera & another …. Petitioners Mr. Dipti Ranjan Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Ashish Mohapatra …. Opp. Party Mr. Anurag Pati, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
Decision
ORDER 11.07.2025 05. 1. Heard Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. A. Pati, learned counsel for the Opposite Party. 2. By means of this application, the Petitioners seek indulgence of this Court for a direction to quash/modify the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, under Annexure-1, wherein the learned Court disposed of the petitions filed by the parties on 16.03.2024 and 29.04.2024. In the petition dated 16.03.2024 the Petitioners sought for rectification of the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance and asserted that the application for interim maintenance was filed on 16.01.2023 and not on 04.07.2023. However, while disposing of the wife-Petitioners' prayer for interim maintenance, the learned Court directed that maintenance be granted with effect from 04.07.2023 instead of 16.01.2023. 3. In the course of hearing of the present application, the learned counsel for the Petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the application filed before the learned trial court in CRP No.18 of 2023 and submitted that the date of the application, as mentioned therein, is 16.01.2023. The same has been duly signed by the Page 1 of 4 Petitioners on 16.01.2023, and both the verification and the affidavit have also been signed and sworn on 16.01.2023, as endorsed by the Chief Administrative Officer/Oath Commissioner appended to the application. 4. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned court below misconstrued the position by relying upon its order- sheet dated 04.07.2023, wherein it has been mentioned, “Petitioner filed a petition praying for grant of interim maintenance”, and thereby accepting the date of the application for interim maintenance to be 04.07.2023 instead of 16.01.2023. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the mere passing of the order dated 04.07.2023 to the effect that the Petitioners filed a petition for interim maintenance cannot be construed as the actual date of filing, particularly when the application itself, along with the affidavit, clearly bears the date 16.01.2023. 5. Mr. Pati, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-husband, on the other hand, justified the impugned order to be correct in view of the fact that the learned court itself held the petition to have been filed on 04.07.2023 while maintaining the order and there is no order prior to the same showing the petitioners to have filed the application on 16.01.2023. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and upon perusal of the case record, it amply reveals that the interim application for maintenance filed by the Petitioners bears the date 16.01.2023. The verification appended to the application so also the affidavit sworn in before the Oath Commissioner who is none else but the Chief Administrative Officer of the Court endorsed the date of affidavit to be 16.01.2023. Hence, prima facie the application appears to have been filed on 16.01.2023. Page 2 of 4 7. As far as the question of whether any order was passed by the Court on the very date of filing is concerned, although such a matter may not fall within the domain of the Petitioners, a perusal of the order-sheets of various dates passed by the learned court below discloses that, vide order dated 13.01.2023, an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. was filed by the Petitioners, supported by an affidavit, praying for grant of maintenance along with litigation expenses, which was registered and directed to be placed before the P.O. on 24.01.2023. 8. Admittedly, the order-sheet does not disclose the filing of the interim application to be on 16.01.2023. However, the very order passed by the learned court below on 04.07.2023 simply discloses that a petition praying for grant of interim maintenance has been filed. Consequently, such order of the Court cannot be construed that the application for interim maintenance was filed on 04.07.2023 instant. 9. The case record further reveals that, being aggrieved by the quantum of interim maintenance passed by the learned court below, the Petitioners had moved before this Court in CRLMP No.114 of 2024, wherein this Court having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioners and circumstances, vide its order dated 07.02.2024, enhanced the quantum of interim maintenance from Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) to Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-five Thousand). In the said CRLMP No. 114 of 2024 this Court had categorically mentioned the date of application for interim maintenance to be 16.01.2023. 10. Subsequently, the Opposite Party, being aggrieved by the aforesaid enhancement in the quantum of interim maintenance, filed an application for modification by way of an interim application Page 3 of 4 registered as I.A. No.69 of 2024. Upon hearing the Opposite Party in the said interim application, this Court, vide order dated 30.04.2024, modified the enhanced interim maintenance to the extent of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) instead of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand), as earlier directed vide order dated 07.02.2024. 11. Needless to mention, the Opposite Party, in the said interim application, although having had the opportunity to bring to the notice of this Court that the date of filing of the application for interim maintenance was 04.07.2023, chose to acquiesce with the order of this Court which recorded the said date as 16.01.2023. Consequently, despite being fully aware that the application for interim maintenance was filed on 16.01.2023, the Opposite Party never raised any objection to that effect. 12. Surprisingly, while deciding the application of the Petitioners, the learned court below also remained complacent to the specific observations of this Court in CRLMP No.114 of 2024, passed on 07.02.2024. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the date of the application for interim maintenance was 16.01.2023 and not 04.07.2023. Accordingly, the Opposite Party-husband is directed to pay interim maintenance to the Petitioner-wife from the date of the application, i.e., 16.01.2023, and not from 04.07.2023. 13. The impugned order passed by the learned court below dated 19.06.2024 is accordingly modified to the extent that the date of application for interim maintenance was on 16.01.2023 and not 04.07.2023. 14. With the above modification, the CRLMP stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SAMIR KUMAR PARIDA Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary Reason: Authentic Copy Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 14-Jul-2025 17:03:52 S.K. Parida Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Page 4 of 4