The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24410 of 2025 Puja Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate Santosh Kumar Sahoo …. Opposite Party -versus- CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 19.09.2025 01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner-wife, who is the Opposite Party in C.P. No.122 of 2024, preferred by the Opposite Party- husband, now pending in the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh. 3. Impugned is the order dated 19.08.2025 passed in I.A. No.26 of 2024, arising out of C.P. No.122 of 2024. Vide the said order, the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for interim maintenance so also cost of litigation expenses was disposed of by allowing the prayer made by the Petitioner-wife partly only to the extent of directing the Opposite Party-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
Legal Reasoning
4. Being aggrieved by such order dated 19.08.2025, the present writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the said order passed in I.A. No.26 of 2024, arising out of C.P. No.122 of 2024, on various grounds. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the petition dated 08.11.2024, which has been registered as I.A. No.26 of 2024, as at Annexure-3, submits that a prayer was made by the present Petitioner in the said I.A. to pay Rs.25,000/- per month towards her maintenance so also Rs.20,000/- per month towards litigation expenses. While dealing and disposing of such application, the learned Court below gave a finding that the Petitioner has no independent income and is unable to meet the litigation expenses and she does have sufficient means to give her defence in the said case filed by the Opposite Party-husband for divorce. Still, without assigning any cogent reason to deny the prayer for interim monthly maintenance so also discussing about such prayer, the learned Court below passed the impugned order directing the Opposite Party-husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- only towards litigation expenses, for which she was being constrained to approach this Court in the form of present writ petition. Page 2 of 9 6. In view of such submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it would be apt to reproduce below the prayer made in the I.A. No.26 of 2024. “P R A Y E R It is therefore prayed that your Honour would be graciously pleased to direct the present opp. party-cum-her husband to pay Rs.25,000/- per month for her maintenance and Rs.20,000/- litigation to her expenses.” for her (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Similarly, it would be apt to reproduce below the paragraph-5 of the impugned order, which is relevant for proper adjudication of the grievance of the Petitioner-wife. It “5. The marriage between the petitioner has remained undisputed, unchallenged and un- controverted. is evident that despite all attempts, the reconciliation between the parties did not work out and she has taken refuge in her father’s house without any support from her husband and living in deprivation. The petitioner has no independent income and is unable to meet the litigation cost and defend the instant C.P. No.l22 of 2024 filed by her husband. The petitioner has a long standing dispute with the OP, the petitioner does not have sufficient means to give her defense in the instant case filed for divorce by her husband. the circumstances and assessing the total facts in this I, proceeding, in my considered opinion, awarding litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the petitioner at this stage will sub serve the ends of justice and lead to expeditious disposal of the case. Hence, it is ordered.” In (Emphasis Supplied) Page 3 of 9 8. It is amply clear from the prayer made in the I.A. that, the Petitioner-wife prayed for monthly interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- so also Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses during pendency of C.P. No.122 of 2024. As is revealed from paragraph-5 of the impugned order, the learned Court below was of the view that the Petitioner has no independent income and is unable to meet the litigation expenses to defend her case properly in C.P. No.122 of 2024. That apart there is long standing dispute with the Opposite Party- husband and she does not have sufficient means to give her defence in the said case filed for divorce against her. Still the learned Court below passed an order that payment of Rs.10,000/- to the Petitioner at this stage would sub serve the ends of justice and lead to expeditious disposal of the said case. 9. In Rajnesh-Vrs-Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 the Supreme Court held as follows: III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance of The objective the dependent spouse granting 77. interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status Page 4 of 9 the income income; whether of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant educated and is professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was in her matrimonial accustomed to the applicant was home; whether employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife. a the the has that claim quantum is conditional on 79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain this Court held financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while of determining maintenance. An order of interim the maintenance circumstance that the wife or husband who makes no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent the court upon should mould for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his factual situations; claim the Page 5 of 9 to at arrive own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able- bodied educational qualifications. 46 and has for test home. determination her matrimonial 81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. of The maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of i.e. maintenance awarded the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so it drives the wife to meagre that penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is herself with able reasonable comfort. two extremes to to maintain the 82. Section 23 of the HAMA provides statutory guidance with respect to the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the HAMA provides the following into factors which may be taken Page 6 of 9 consideration: (i) position and status of the parties, (ii) reasonable wants of the claimant, (fff) if the petitioner/claimant i living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant’s property and any income derived from from such property, claimant’s own earning or from any other source. income (v) 83. Section 20(2) of the DV Act provides that the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved woman and/or the children must be adequate, fair, reasonable, and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved woman was accustomed to in her matrimonial home... 84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance: 1. Status of the parties. 2. Reasonable wants of the claimant. 3.The property of the claimant. independent income and 4.The number of persons, the non- applicant has to maintain. 5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home. 6. Non-applicant’s liabilities, if any. 7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant. Page 7 of 9 8. Payment capacity of applicant. the non- 9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non- applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act." 10. Hence, in view of the findings of the learned Court below, as extracted above, and the settled position of law, so also the illegality committed by the learned Court below being telltale, so also to avoid further delay, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be disposed of at the stage of admission without noticing the Opposite Party-husband. 11. Accordingly, in view of the discussions made above so also the settled position of law, the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed in I.A. No.26 of 2004(arising out of C.P. No.122 of 2024) is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh for reconsideration of the prayer made in I.A. No.26 of 2024 in accordance with law so also taking note of the pleadings and evidences on record and its own findings, as quoted above. Learned Court below shall also do well to dispose of Page 8 of 9 I.A. No.26 of 2004 within four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. 12. It is made clear that the learned Court below shall not proceed further on merit in C.P. No.122 of 2024 till a fresh order is passed in I.A. No.26 of 2024. 13. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Court below for information and necessary action. 14. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (S. K. MISHRA) JUDGE Prasant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 21-Sep-2025 12:00:59 Page 9 of 9