JUSTICE v. NARASINGH Date of hearing
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRL. REV. No.559 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Section 442 of BNSS, 2023. 1. Mamina Tripathy 2. Amitansu Tripathy …. Petitioners -versus- 1. Amaresh Tripathy 2.Aditya Tripathy 3. Sanjukta Tripathy …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners: Mr. Biswajit Parida, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Date of hearing : 06.12.2024 Date of judgment : 11.04.2025 V. Narasingh, J. Revision under Section 442 of the BNSS is preferred by the wife and son assailing the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2020 at the instance of the husband and in-laws modifying the order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge (W), Jagatsinghpur under Section 12 of the P.W.D.V Act, 2005 (Act 2005). Page 1 of 6 2. To fortify their respective stand before the learned
Legal Reasoning
trial court, the Petitioner No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and at the behest of the Opposite Parties, the husband of the Petitioner deposed as O.P.W.1 and mother-in-law of the Petitioner examined as O.P.W.2. On the basis of the evidence on record, learned trial court held that the Opposite Parties herein must provide unhindered stay of the Petitioners in their residential house or alternatively provide cash of Rs.1500/- per month towards house rent. The husband Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards monetary relief to the wife Petitioner No.1 and further a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to the son Petitioner No.2 for his maintenance and study expenses. 3. Assailing the same, Opposite Parties herein filed Criminal Appeal No.07 of 2020 under Section 29 of the P.W.D.V Act, 2005. In the background that there being no dispute regarding marital status of the Petitioner qua Opposite Party No.1 and parentage of Petitioner No.2 herein, learned Appellate Court analyzed the evidence on record, took note of the contentions on behalf of the Petitioner Wife that income of her husband was Rs.12,000/- per month and that her husband was working in the Bajaj Company at Ainthapali, Sambalpur. But, in the absence of any documentary evidence being submitted on the said count held that the quantification on the basis of such unsubstantiated Page 2 of 6 contention is liable to be interfered with and arrived at monthly income of the husband at Rs.11,700/- and directed monetary relief in lieu of residential accommodation at Rs.1000/- and for the wife monetary relief was assessed as Rs.1500/- and Rs.1500/- was awarded to the son Petitioner No.2 herein, towards his study and other expenses. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that quantification by the learned appellate court reducing the amount on each of the heads as above is the outcome of perverse appreciation of the evidence on record and ex facie against the benevolent provisions of the Act, 2005 and since the learned trial court has fixed reasonable amount, the same ought not to have been interfered with. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned appellate court. 6. This Court perused the evidence on record of P.W.1 wife and O.P.W.1-husband. Admittedly no documents were exhibited by either side. It is apt to note that the mother of the Opposite Party No.1-husband was examined as O.P.W.2 and stated in her evidence that the Opposite Party was getting a salary of Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month and it was also admitted that they have landed property. Hence, taking into account the same, learned trial court had quantified the amount at Rs.1500/- towards alternative Page 3 of 6 accommodation, Rs.2000/- towards monetary relief and Rs.3000/- towards study expenses and maintenance of the son Petitioner No.2 and the total amount thus comes to Rs.6500/-. There is no documentary evidence on record to fortify the claim of the Petitioner No.1 that her husband was getting Rs.12000/- per month, as noted by the learned appellate court. 7. The intention of the law makers in enacting Act, 2005 social legislation is to take care of a wife and child who are in distress. But, while quantifying the amount, financial capacity of the husband and his economic status are relevant considerations. It is also apt to note that the present Petitioners had not assailed the order passed by the learned trial court. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that there is nothing on record to indicate that the husband Opposite Party No.1 was earning Rs.12000/- per month. 8. On an analysis of the evidence on record and keeping in view the social status of the Petitioners and the educational requirements of Petitioner No.2, this Court does not find any infirmity in the award of Rs.1000/- towards alternative accommodation as made by the learned appellate court but the reduction of the amount of monthly compensation to the Petitioner No.1- wife from Rs.2000/- to Rs.1000/- does not appear to be Page 4 of 6 just exercise of the jurisdiction and accordingly the amount as awarded by the learned trial court of Rs.2000/- is restored. So far as amount quantified towards educational expenses of the son Petitioner No.2 is concerned, learned appellate court has awarded Rs.1500/- reducing the same from Rs.3000/-. The same is modified to Rs.2000/- inter alia considering that the said Petitioner is availing transport service(s) to reach his school. 9. Hence, the impugned order is modified to the extent as above. Financial compensation to the wife- Petitioner is quantified of Rs.2000/- (rupees one thousand only) and it is directed that the Opposite Party No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (rupees one thousand only) towards alternative accommodation, Rs.2000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards school expenses of his son Petitioner No.2. As such the total amount on all the heads comes to Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand only). The amount towards school expenses shall be paid by 10th of every succeeding month. The compensation on the other two counts towards alternative accommodation and financial compensation shall be paid by 15th and 20th of every succeeding month. All the above payments as above shall be from the date of the order i.e. 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge (W) Jagatsinghpur in Misc. Case No.74/2014/ Com. No.87 of 2018. Page 5 of 6 10. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 11th April, 2025/Pradeep Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 17-Apr-2025 16:40:35 Page 6 of 6