Orissa High Court
Abinash Nanda vs Sagarika Mishra … … Opp. Party on 12 February, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026
An application under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India;
---------------
Abinash Nanda ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Sagarika Mishra ... ... Opp. Party
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Rajkishore Swain,
Advocate
For Opp. Party :
------------------
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
——————————————————————————
Decided on 12th February, 2026
——————————————————————————
PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The writ petition has been filed challenging the
attachment and execution proceeding (and seeking stay
of further proceeding) arising out of order dated
15.09.2025 passed in CMC No.122 of 2023 pending
before the court of learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-
Page 1 of 9
J.M.F.C.-III, Bolangir till disposal of the petitioner’s stay
application in CRLA No.10 of 2025.
The order dated 15.09.2025 was passed by the
learned Additional Civil Judge-cum-J.M.F.C., Balangir in
CMC Case No.122 of 2023 under section 23 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(in short “P.W.D.V. Act“).
2. The husband works as a Judicial Magistrate First
Class and opposite party in the CMC Case. It is stated by
the learned counsel for the petitioner that he earns about
Rs.1,30,000/- as salary which is also common
knowledge. The direction was for payment of Rs.15,000/-
as interim monthly maintenance for survival of aggrieved
party along with minor child born from the wedlock from
07.07.2023 i.e. date of application.
3. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Rajnesh v. Neha and another1 i.e.
guidelines/directions issued on maintenance awarded to
wife in the marriage referring to Article 15(3) of the
Constitution of India, the learned counsel for the
petitioner was asked whether the petitioner will secure
the amount that remains unpaid since 07.07.2023 till
date (12.02.2026)( i.e. for 30 months the amount comes
to Rs.4,50,000/-); learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he wants to seek instruction from the
petitioner and accordingly, the matter was passed over to
be taken up later.
1
2020 INSC 631: (2021) 2 SCC 324
W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026 Page 2 of 9
4. After about half an hour the matter was called
again. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he has received instruction that the petitioner will
not secure the defaulted amount of Rs.4,50,000/-,
however, he can deposit upto Rs.1,00,000/- for securing
the decree.
5. This has led to a situation before this Court (High
Court) where a Judicial Magistrate being defaulter in a
decree granted by the court of proper jurisdiction which
is in the nature of a money decree in view of Rajnesh v.
Neha, does not want to secure the decree to challenge
the order on merits.
6. When this Court expressed its view that the
petitioner cannot bargain to suggest an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to secure the decree for challenging the
same, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though he does not have instruction he being the
conducting counsel wants to withdraw the petition.
7. The learned judge in the impugned order dated
15.09.2025 has considered the relevant aspects to arrive
at conclusion. The relevant paragraphs from the
impugned judgment which are considered and
emphasized by this Court are reproduced herein:
“Heard from both the sides. Perused the case
record. Firstly, before dealing with the provision of
Section 23 of P.W.D.V. Act, it must be seen that
whether the aggrieved is entitle to file an
application under this Act. As per Section 2 (a) of
P.W.D.V. Act “aggrieved person” means any
woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who alleges
W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026 Page 3 of 9
to have been subjected to any act of domestic
violence by the respondent. On perusal of record,
it is found that it is an admitted fact that
aggrieved party is the wife of the OP no.l and she
had been living with O.P.1. Thus, entitlement to
file an application under this Act is not in
question. Now it is required to see whether the
aggrieved has right to get the benefit of the
Section-23 of the P.W.D.V. Act. I have gone”
through the provision U/s.23(2) of P.W.D.V Act
which clearly provides that ” if the Magistrate is
satisfied that an application prima facie discloses
that the respondent is committing, or has
committed an act of domestic violence or that there
is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an
act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex-parte
order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as
may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under
section 18, section 19, section 20, section21 or,
as the case may be, section 22 against the
respondent. “On perusal of the affidavit, it is
forthcoming that the aggrieved is staying in her
paternal house since the date of filing of the
application and since then she along with the
female child are dependent upon her father. The
affidavit clearly shows the precarious conditions
of the aggrieved party. She has been deprived of
all economic or financial resources to which she is
entitled to meet the house hold necessities for her
and for her child. Further the welfare of the child
is the paramount consideration. It should be
ensured that the interest of the child is protected
in all matrimonial disputes. P.W.D.W. Act is
enacted with an aim to provide protection to the
women, who are the victims of the domestic
violence of any kind occurring within the family.
Here, from the application of the petitioner, it
appears that she has been subjected to many
hardship and the plight of the petitioner compels
her to file a case against her husband and other
respondents. So, to protect the status and dignity
W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026 Page 4 of 9
of the petitioner along with her child and to save
them from being distressed, this
Court thinks it just and proper to allow the prayer
of the petitioner for the ends of justice. Hence
ordered.
ORDER
The O.P no.1 is directed to pay Rs.l5,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen thousand) only as interim monthly
maintenance to the petitioner for the survival of
aggrieved party along with her minor child who
has not made a party in this case till further order.
I he OP No.1 is directed to pay the said monthly
maintenance from 07.07.2023 i.e., the date of
application. The monthly allowance shall be paid
within the second week of each succeeding
English calendar month failing which the
petitioner is at liberty to execute the order through
process of law. Supply free copy of this order to
the aggrieved person as well as to the opposite
party.”
8. This Court has to and takes note that in Rajnesh v.
Neha1 (supra) the following has been laid down (INSC
print).
“Given the backdrop of the facts of the
present case, which reveal that the application for
interim maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has
remained pending before the Courts for seven
years now, and the difficulties encountered in the
enforcement of orders passed by the Courts, as the
wife was constrained to move successive
applications for enforcement from time to time, we
deem it appropriate to frame guidelines on the
issue of maintenance, which would cover
overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments
for payment of maintenance, payment of Interim
Maintenance, the criteria for determining the
quantum of maintenance, the date from which
maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of
orders of maintenance.
W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026 Page 5 of 9
Guidelines/Directions on Maintenance
Maintenance laws have been enacted as a
measure of social justice to provide recourse to
dependant wives and children for their financial
support, so as to prevent them from falling into
destitution and vagrancy.
Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India
provides that:
“Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State
from making any special provision for women and
children.”
Article 15 (3) reinforced by Article 39 of the
Constitution of India, which envisages a positive
role for the State in fostering change towards the
empowerment of women, led to the enactment of
various legislations from time to time.”
xxx xxx xxx
“Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in
2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which
could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs. 500
“in the whole”. In view of the rising costs of living
and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs. 500 was done
away by the 2001 Amendment Act. The Statement
of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act
states that the wife had to wait for several years
before being granted maintenance. Consequently,
the Amendment Act introduced an express
provision for grant of “interim maintenance”. The
Magistrate was vested with the power to order the
Respondent to make a monthly allowance towards
interim maintenance during the pendency of the
petition.
Under Sub-section (2) of Section 125, the Court
is conferred with the discretion to award payment
of maintenance either from the date of the order, or
from the date of the application.
Under the third proviso to the amended
Section 125, the application for grant of interim
maintenance must be disposed of as far as
W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026 Page 6 of 9
possible within sixty days’ from the date of service
of notice on the Respondent.”
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
9. At paragraph 20 of the decision rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan2, the following has been laid down regarding scope
of interference in an application seeking revision of an
order directing payment of maintenance. The present
application though under Article 227 of Constitution of
India has to be considered by applying the criteria as
elaborated in Shamima Farooqui (supra). Paragraphs
19 and 20 of Shamima Farooqui (SCC online web
edition print), which are relied upon, followed and
applied are reproduced herein:
“19. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is
limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a
higher pedestal when the question of maintenance
of wife and children arises. When the woman
leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite
different. She is deprived of many a comfort.
Sometimes her faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she
feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may
be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought
her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort
that the law can impose is that the husband is
bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only
soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to
resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition
for grant of maintenance allowance.
20. In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court
has reduced the amount of maintenance from
Rs.4000 to Rs.2000. As is manifest, the High Court
2
(2015) 5 SCC 705W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026 Page 7 of 9
has become oblivious of the fact that she has to
stay on her own. Needless to say, the order of the
learned Family Judge is not manifestly perverse.
There is nothing perceptible which would show that
order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, when the
order is based on proper appreciation of evidence
on record, no Revisional Court should have
interfered with the reason on the base that it would
have arrived at a different or another conclusion.
When substantial justice has been done, there was
no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over
her head in the parental house, but other real
expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the
husband had retired, there was no justification to
reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge
fortune that was showered on the wife that it
deserved reduction. It only reflects the non-
application of mind and, therefore, we are unable
to sustain the said order.
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
10. Though the case is listed for fresh admission, in
considered opinion of this Court for issuing notice to the
opposite party-wife, this Court has to apply the
propositions laid down in Shamima Farooqui (supra)
and has to prima facie satisfy itself regarding the
impugned order dated 15.09.2025 that:
(i) whether the order passed by the learned Family Judge
is manifestly perverse;
(ii) whether there is anything perceptible which is to
show that the order is sanctuary of errors;
(iii) whether the order is based on proper appreciation of
evidence on record;
W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026 Page 8 of 9
(iv) the revisional Court should not interfere because the
revisional Court would arrive at a different or another
conclusion;
(v) whether substantial justice has been done by the
learned court which has passed the order.
11. Now considering the case at hand the answer has to
be and is ‘no’ for all the five propositions as indicated
above. Rather, it is found that the order passed by the
learned court which is impugned is based on proper
appreciation of evidence on record and substantial
justice has been done.
Further as stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not inclined to secure the amount directed to
be paid to the opposite party-wife and child during
pendency of this petition.
12. In view of the discussions above it has to be and it
is held that the petition is devoid of any merit and is
dismissed.
Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned
Additional Civil Judge-cum-J.M.F.C., Balangir before
whom the execution case is pending.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE
Reason: Authentication The 12th February, 2026/Jyostna
Location: ohc
Date: 11-Mar-2026 19:24:16
W.P. (C) No.4883 of 2026 Page 9 of 9