Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Rath vs Manasi Dash @ Rath on 8 July, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Section 442 read with
Section 438(1) of the BNSS corresponds with Section 401
read with Section 397 (1) of the Cr.P.C.)
----------------
Pradeep Kumar Rath …. Petitioner
-versus-
1. Manasi Dash @ Rath …. Opposite Parties
2. Sai Pritam Rath
For Petitioner : Mr. M.B. Das, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. A.N. Dash, Advocate
(For O.P No.1)
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING : 07.04.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 08.07.2026
V. Narasingh,J. Heard learned counsel for the
Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
1. The present revision has been preferred
assailing the judgment passed by the learned 2nd
Page 1 of 8
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuttack on
09.10.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 07 of 2025.
For convenience of reference, the
Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party shall be
referred to as per their status before the Court of
first instance i.e., learned CJ(JD), 2nd Court-
cum- JMFC, Cuttack in Criminal Misc. Case No.92
of 2013 (T.R. No. 325 of 2024).
2. The Opposite Parties 1 and 2, as aggrieved
persons, instituted the aforementioned case under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the
“P.W.D.V. Act“), claiming reliefs under Sections 18, 19,
3. Opposite Party No. 1 is the wife of the
Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2 is the minor son of
the Petitioner and Opposite Party No. 1.
4. To fortify their case, the aggrieved persons
examined themselves as P.Ws. 1 and 2. On the other
hand, the Petitioner examined himself as O.P.W. No. 2
Page 2 of 8
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
and also examined two other witnesses, namely,
O.P.W. No. 1, Manjulata Pati, and O.P.W. No. 3, Dillip
Kumar Rath.
5. Documents were adduced as evidence on
behalf of the aggrieved persons as well as the Opposite
Party-Petitioner.
6. In resisting the Domestic Incident Report
submitted by the Protection Officer as well as the stand
of the aggrieved persons that they were subjected to
domestic violence in terms of Section 2(g) read with
Section 3 of the P.W.D.V. Act, the Petitioner, inter alia,
took the plea of willful desertion and persecution.
7. On considering the evidence on record, the
learned Trial Court directed the present Petitioner to
pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the aggrieved
person (wife), Rs.3,000/- per month to their son,
Rs.2,000/- per month towards alternative
accommodation and Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
8. Assailing the same, the present Petitioner
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2025. The
Page 3 of 8
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
aggrieved person-Opposite Party No. 1 (wife) also
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2025 under Section
29 of the P.W.D.V. Act.
9. Since both the appeals arose out of the same
case, i.e., D.V. Criminal Misc. Case No. 92 of 2013
(T.R. No. 325 of 2024), they were heard together and
disposed of by the impugned common judgment dated
09.10.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Court.
10. The Opposite Party-husband prayed for
setting aside of the direction passed by the Trial Court
awarding monthly maintenance as well as lump-sum
compensation in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2025. The
aggrieved person-wife (Opposite Party No. 1 in this
revision) preferred Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2025, inter
alia, on the ground that the quantum of monthly
maintenance granted in favour of the aggrieved person
and their son was abysmally low and sought
enhancement thereof.
11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner-husband that the learned Trial Court failed
Page 4 of 8
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
to appreciate the uncontroverted materials on record
manifestly establishing that it is a case of willful
desertion and that the direction to pay the quantum of
maintenance and compensation is very much on the
higher side and amounts to a bonanza for the
aggrieved person.
12. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-
aggrieved person opposes such prayer and submits
that, in view of the materials and evidence on record,
the matter does not merit consideration.
13. On perusal of the order passed by the Trial
Court as well as the Appellate Court, it is seen that
both the Courts below have taken into account the
evidence of P.W.1, the aggrieved person (wife), and
her sister, P.W.2. They have also considered the
evidence of the Petitioner as O.P.W. No. 2. O.P.W. No.
1 is Manjulata Pati, related to the aggrieved person,
and O.P.W. No. 3 is Dillip Kumar Rath, who is the
brother of the Petitioner.
Page 5 of 8
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
14. The evidence on record that the Petitioner is a
retired Sales Manager in Bata Pvt. Ltd. has gone
unchallenged. It is also seen that the aggrieved person
has not furnished any document to establish the
income of the husband or her own expenditure. As
such, the amount determined has to be reasonable.
15. The Apex Court, in Rajnesh v. Neha,
(2021) 2 SCC 324, has acknowledged the inherent
subjectivity involved in the quantification of
maintenance.
16. On going through the materials on record,
this Court is of the considered view that there is no
reason to interfere with the award of monthly
maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- for the aggrieved person,
Rs. 3,000/- for their son, and Rs. 2,000/- per month
towards alternative accommodation.
17. While dealing with the award of
compensation under Section 22 of the P.W.D.V. Act,
the Apex Court in the case of Shaurabh Kumar
Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158
Page 6 of 8
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
has held that the same can be granted for mental
torture and emotional distress caused by domestic
violence. It is trite quantification of compensation
cannot be done in an objective manner and some
degree of subjectivity cannot be avoided.
18. Taking into account the rival submissions and
the materials on record and that the Petitioner-
husband is a retired person, this Court is of the
considered view that reducing the compensation from
Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,000/- would meet the ends of
justice.
It is needless to say that the same shall be
paid within a period of six weeks hence, failing which it
shall be open for the aggrieved person to take steps
for recovery of the same in tune with the provisions
contained in the P.W.D.V. Act.
19. The CRLREV is accordingly disposed of by
modifying the order passed by the learned Appellate
Court as above.
Page 7 of 8
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
The monthly maintenance shall be paid in the
first week of each succeeding month of the English
calendar, as directed by the learned Trial Court. Failing
such payment, the aggrieved person shall be at liberty
to execute the order in accordance with law, inter alia,
by taking recourse to Section 31 of the P.W.D.V. Act.
(V. NARASINGH)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 8th July, 2026/ Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 09-Jul-2026 19:29:10
Page 8 of 8
CRLREV No.935 of 2025
