Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Feb-2025 17:20:45 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.738 of 2024 & CRLREV No.708 of 2024 (In CRLREV No.738 of 2024) Priyadarshini Amrita Panda …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Basudev Pujari, Adv. Mr. B.K. Nayak, Adv. -versus- …. Biswajit Pati Opposite Party(s) Mr.Gouri Mohan Rath, Adv. Mr. S.S. Padhy, Adv. Mr. P. Mohanty, Adv., Mr. M. Bohidar, Adv. (In CRLREV No.708 of 2024 ) Biswajit Pati ….
Legal Reasoning
Petitioner(s) Mr.Gouri Mohan Rath, Adv. Mr. S.S. Padhy, Adv. Mr. P. Mohanty, Adv., Mr. M. Bohidar, Adv. -versus- Priyadarshini Amrita Panda …. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Basudev Pujari, Adv. Mr. B.K. Nayak, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. 05. ORDER 21.02.2025 1. Both the matters are taken up through virtual mode. 2. Since both the CRLREVs arise out of same judgment and both the cases are interlinked, the same are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. It appears that the Petitioner (Priyadarshini Amrita Panda) in CRLREV No.738 of 2024 is wife (hereinafter referred to as “the Page 1 of 6 // 2 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Feb-2025 17:20:45 wife” for brevity) and the Petitioner (Biswajit Pati) in CRLREV No.708 of 2024 is husband (hereinafter referred to as “the husband” for brevity). 4. The Petitioner/ wife in CRLREV No.738 of 2024 has made a prayer to revise/ modify the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No.06 of 2020 to the extent of enhancing the interim maintenance to a sum of Rs.80,000/- per month; the litigation cost to a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. She further seeks a direction from this Court to the husband to pay the arrear maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the petition under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for brevity) till the date of judgment/ order i.e. 26.11.2024 in 12 equal installments. 5. The Petitioner/ husband in CRLREV No.708 of 2024 has challenged the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No.06 of 2020 on different grounds. 6. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 7. Facts of the case are that Ms. Priyadarshini Amrita Panda/wife had filed an application under Section 12 read with Sections l8, 19, 20 and 22 of P.W.D.V. Act on 17.12.2018. During pendency of the said proceeding, she had filed another petition under Section 23 of the Act on 28.02.2019 against the husband claiming interim Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Feb-2025 17:20:45 maintenance from the husband (Opposite Party No.1 therein). However, the said prayer has been rejected by learned J.M.F.C, Cuttack vide order 09.12.2019. Being aggrieved, the wife filed D.V. Crl. Appeal. No.6 of 2020 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack. The said D.V. Appeal was transferred to the court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack on 05.04.2022. 8. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack vide judgment dated 26.11.2024 allowed the Crl. Appeal No.6 of 2020 setting aside the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Cuttack in Crl. Misc. Case No.326 of 2018 with a direction to the husband to pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.18,000/- per month to the wife by 12th day of every succeeding month with effect from the date of filing of the application under Section 23 of the Act, the arrear dues from the date of filing of the petition under Section 23 of the Act till the date of order be paid by the husband to the wife in 36 equal installments. It was further directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to the wife by the husband. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack Crl. Appeal No.6 of 2020, the husband has filed CRLREV No.708 of 2024. Further, the wife has filed CRLREV No.738 of 2024 for modification of the aforesaid impugned judgment to the extent as stated supra. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Feb-2025 17:20:45 10. In this case, admittedly, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to their relation i.e. husband and wife. 11. It is apparent from the record that the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack has meticulously examined the pleadings of the Parties and found that though it is admitted by both the parties that the wife is a highly qualified lady having previous contractual engagement at JNV, Sarang in the district of Dhenkanal, but, there is dispute between the parties regarding the present engagement of the wife as a lecturer in a private college. To that effect, the husband claimed that the wife was working as Lecturer in a private college and getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the husband could not produce any document to substantiate his claim. Therefore, in absence of any material on record, it could not be substantiated that the wife has her personal source of income to maintain herself. 12. Further, while dealing with the point that high qualification of the wife has any bearing on her claim of interim maintenance, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunita Kachwaha and Ors. –vrs.- Anil Kachwaha1 wherein it has been observed as follows: “xx xx xx In our considered view, merely because the appellant-wife is a qualified post graduate, it would not 1 AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 554 Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Feb-2025 17:20:45 be sufficient to hold that she is in a position to maintain herself. Insofar as her employment as a teacher in Jabalpur, nothing was placed on record before the Family Court or in the High Court to prove her employment and her earnings. In any event, merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance. Xx xx” 13. Keeping in mind the above observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwaha (supra) as well as the fact and circumstances of the case, learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack has passed the impugned judgment as stated supra. 14. In the instant case, this Court had made an attempt for amicable settlement of the dispute between the husband and the wife. Accordingly, vide order dated 13.02.2025 passed in CRLREV No.738 of 2024 both the parties were directed to appear in person before this Court in Chamber on 19.02.2025 at 1.30 P.M. Pursuant to the said order though the wife was present before this Court in Chamber, but the husband was absent on 19.02.2025. In such premises, this Court was of the view that there is less scope of amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties. However, non-appearance of the Petitioner in person on the date fixed by this Court for amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties indicates that the husband wants to linger the matter. 15. In such circumstances, for the ends of justice and to ensure that principles of natural justice is not violated, this Court again Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM- SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Feb-2025 17:20:45 fixed both the matters today for final hearing. Accordingly, heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the written note of submissions submitted by the parties. 16. Considering the facts and submissions made and the materials available on record, this Court is of the view that a payment of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-five Thousand only) per month for interim maintenance to the wife by the husband would be just and proper. Accordingly, the judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Crl. Appeal No.6 of 2020 is modified only to the extent that the husband shall pay interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-five Thousand only) per month to the wife by 12th day of every succeeding month with effect from the date of filing of the application under Section 23 of the Act. Further, the husband is directed to pay the entire arrear dues of interim maintenance to the wife in equal installments within a period of six months from today. All other directions made in the impugned judgment remain unaltered. 17. Accordingly, both the CRLREVs are disposed of. Judge ( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) B. Jhankar Page 6 of 6