Orissa High Court
An Application Under Section 19(4) Of … vs Snigdha Samaranika Das … … Opp. … on 4 May, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.01 of 2025
An application under section 19(4) of the Family Court Act,
1984.
---------------
Bibhuprasad Sahoo ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Snigdha Samaranika Das ... ... Opp. Party
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Petitioner : (Ms. Rita Singh, Advocate)
For Opp. Party : Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra,
Advocate
------------------
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
——————————————————————————
Decided on 04th May, 2026
——————————————————————————
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The petitioner-husband is before this Court seeking
Signature Not Verifiedrevision of the judgment dated 21.09.2024 passed by the
Digitally Signed
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Cr.P. No.07
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Date: 09-May-2026 13:22:02
of 2020. By the said judgment, the petition U/s.125 Cr.P.C.
(since repealed and substituted by pari material provision
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 1 of 30
contained in Section 144 of BNSS, 2023) claiming a sum of
Rs.50,000/- per month filed by the wife in the marriage was
allowed. However, the learned Judge, Family Court directed
Rs.6,000/- as monthly maintenance from the date of
application i.e. 09.01.2020.
2. The matter is kept pending since 20.01.2025 when it
was taken up for the first time. On 21.03.2026, notices were
issued. Thereafter, since the requisites were not filed,
further time was granted on 05.05.2025 for filing of
requisites. On 22.01.2026, the matter was adjourned by the
petitioner. It was mentioned by the learned counsel for the
Opp. Party that due to stay of operation of the judgment
granting maintenance, the Opp. Party is not getting any
maintenance. The order dated 22.01.2026 is reproduced
herein:
“1. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
adjournment.
2. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party opposes the
same submitting that due to operation of the
interim order, the Opp. Party-wife in the marriage
is not getting any benefits of the direction of
granting maintenance.
3. List in the week commencing 23.02.2026, when
efforts shall be made for disposal of the
application.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at
length on 05.03.2026, the facts and proposition of law were
noted in detail. Relevant portion of the order dated
05.03.2026 is reproduced herein:
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 2 of 30
xxx xxx xxx
“3. For issuance of notice a stand has been taken
as recorded by the coordinate Bench by order dated
21.03.2025 that the petitioner-husband is doing
nothing. The opposite party-wife is working as an
Assistant Revenue Inspector in the office of the
Tahasildar, Cuttack, therefore it cannot be said that
the wife is unable to maintain herself so as to entitle
herself for maintenance.
4. On being asked, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner-husband has
chosen to remain in default of the entire amount due
which comes to Rs. 4,32,000/-(from 09.01.2020 to
09.02.2026), 73 months x Rs.6,000/- =
Rs.4,38,000/-.
5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the
opposite party-wife submits that the petitioner has
paid Rs.7,000/- out of the said due of amount of
Rs.4,38,000/-.
6. Both the issues raised before this Court that
the wife earning/capacity to earn has been
answered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Rajnesh v Neha:(2021) 2 SCC 324, which
are reproduced herein.
“(c) Where wife is earning some income
90. The courts have held that if the wife is
earning, it cannot operate as a bar from being
awarded maintenance by the husband. The
courts have provided guidance on this issue in
the following judgments:
90.1. In Shailja v. Khobbanna [Shailja v.
Khobbanna, (2018) 12 SCC 199 : (2018) 5 SCC
(Civ) 308; See also the decision of the
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 3 of 30
Karnataka High Court in P. Suresh v. S. Deepa,
2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8848 : 2016 Cri LJ 4794
(Kar)], this Court held that merely because the
wife is capable of earning, it would not be a
sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance
awarded by the Family Court. The court has to
determine whether the income of the wife is
sufficient to enable her to maintain herself, in
accordance with the lifestyle of her husband in
the matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai,
(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] Sustenance does not
mean, and cannot be allowed to mean mere
survival. [Vipul Lakhanpal v. Pooja Sharma,
2015 SCC OnLine HP 1252 : 2015 Cri LJ
3451].
90.2. In Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha
[Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014)
16 SCC 715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3
SCC (Cri) 589] the wife had a postgraduate
degree, and was employed as a teacher in
Jabalpur. The husband raised a contention
that since the wife had sufficient income, she
would not require financial assistance from the
husband. The Supreme Court repelled this
contention, and held that merely because the
wife was earning some income, it could not be
a ground to reject her claim for maintenance.
90.3. The Bombay High Court in Sanjay
Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale [Sanjay
Damodar Kale v. Kalyani Sanjay Kale, 2020
SCC OnLine Bom 694] while relying upon the
judgment in Sunita Kachwaha [Sunita
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 4 of 30
Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, (2014) 16 SCC
715 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 753 : (2015) 3 SCC
(Cri) 589] , held that neither the mere potential
to earn, nor the actual earning of the wife,
howsoever meagre, is sufficient to deny the
claim of maintenance.
90.4. An able-bodied husband must be
presumed to be capable of earning sufficient
money to maintain his wife and children, and
cannot contend that he is not in a position to
earn sufficiently to maintain his family, as held
by the Delhi High Court in Chander Parkash v.
Shila Rani [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani,
1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] .
The onus is on the husband to establish with
necessary material that there are sufficient
grounds to show that he is unable to maintain
the family, and discharge his legal obligations
for reasons beyond his control. If the husband
does not disclose the exact amount of his
income, an adverse inference may be drawn by
the court.
90.5. This Court in Shamima Farooqui v.
Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ)
274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the
judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander
Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del
52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held
that the obligation of the husband to provide
maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than
the wife.”
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 5 of 30
7. In the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan: (2015) 5 SCC 705, the Court has considered
the scope of interference by the High Court in orders
granting maintenance U/s.125 of Cr.P.C.
Paragraphs-19 and 20 of the said judgment being
apposite are reproduced herein:
xxx xxx xxx
8. The learned Judge, Family Court while
considering the application U/s.125 Cr.P.C. has
dealt with the evidence and material on record and
noted that the petitioner-husband was then working
as Senior Project Engineer, LLOYDS with salary of
Rs.1,00,000/- per month apart from getting
Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from agriculture. The
details of the gifts received by the husband from the
wife’s side during marriage have been noted at
paragraph-5. Learned trial Court has also noted the
fact that the petitioner-wife before the said Court
has mentioned her designation as Assistant
Revenue Inspector in the office of the Tahasildar,
Cuttack.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
was asked for continuance of the interim order
whether the petitioner will secure the decree i.e. the
amount awarded by the learned Court which comes
to Rs.4,38,000/- – Rs.7,000/- = Rs.4,31,000/-. She
submits that she wants to bring on record further
documents by filing affidavit which in view of the
pronouncement of law in Shamima Farooqui
(supra) is not permissible.
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 6 of 30
10. She further submits that she will obtain
instruction how the amount will be secured for
sustaining the challenge.”
4. Thereafter, two months have elapsed. Prior to today’s
listing, the matter was adjourned on 25.03.2026 and
09.04.2026 by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
None appears for the petitioner, though the matter is
called twice over once when it reached before the lunch
break and again after resumption of the proceeding after the
lunch break.
5. In view of the above, it is apparent that the petitioner
is not cooperating in taking up of the matter even after
having been granted sufficient indulgence for more than
four months.
6. As observed while hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner on 05.03.2025, in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has elaborately dealt
with the scope of interference by this Court in exercising
revisional jurisdiction when revision of judgment rendered
by Family Court is sought for.
7. In Shamima Farooqui (supra) the Apex Court dealt
with scope of revision by High Court of a judgment passed
by the learned Family Court in a proceeding under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. and have laid down the law authoritatively.
The paragraphs those would be apt to be applied for the
1
(2015) 5 SCC 705: AIR 2015 SC 2025
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 7 of 30
present case, paragraphs-20 and 21 (from SCC Online print)
are reproduced herein:
“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 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.
21. Having stated the principle, we would have
proceeded to record our consequential conclusion.
But, a significant one, we cannot be oblivious of the
asseverations made by the appellant. It has been
asserted that the respondent had taken voluntary
retirement after the judgment dated 17-2-2012 with
the purpose of escaping the liability to pay the
maintenance amount as directed to the petitioner;
that the last-drawn salary of the respondent taken
into account by the learned Family Judge was RsRPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 8 of 30
17,564 as per salary slip of May 2009 and after
deduction of AFPP Fund and AGI, the salary of the
respondent was Rs 12,564 and hence, even on the
basis of the last basic pay (i.e. Rs 9830) of the
respondent the total pension would come to Rs
14,611 and if 40% of commutation is taken into
account then the pension of the respondent amounts
to Rs 11,535; and that the respondent, in addition to
his pension, had received encashment of
commutation to the extent of 40% i.e. Rs 3,84,500
and other retiral dues i.e. AFPP, AFGI, gratuity and
leave encashment to the tune of Rs 16,01,455. The
aforesaid aspects have gone uncontroverted as the
respondent husband has not appeared and
contested the matter. Therefore, we are disposed to
accept the assertions. This exposition of facts further
impels us to set aside the order of the High Court.”
8. In the present case, the learned Judge, Family Court
has taken note of the pleadings and submissions made by
the present petitioner who was the opposite party, at
paragraph-05.2 of judgment which is reproduced herein and
considered by this court for the present adjudication:
“05.2. The purpose and object of Sec.125 Cr.P.C. is
to provide immediate relief to the wife and children.
It aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution. The
provision U/s.125 Cr.P.C. is enacted for social
justice and specially to protect women and children
as also old and infirm poor parents and falls within
the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3). It gives
effect to the natural and fundamental duty of a man
to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as
they are unable to maintain themselves. The veryRPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 9 of 30
object of the maintenance proceedings is not to
punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent
vagrancy by compelling those who can do so to
support those, who are unable to support
themselves and who have a moral claim to support.
Claiming maintenance by the wife is her
independent right. It is also independent duty of the
opposite party to maintain his wife, if she is unable
to maintain her.
It may not be out of place to quote here that an
order of maintenance cannot be passed where the
husband had neither ill-treated the wife nor has
refused or neglected to maintain her, but she of her
own accord and without any just ground, left
husband’s home and refuses to live with him.
Maintenance is always granted considering
the following parameters such as
“(i) position and status of the parties (ii)
reasonable wants of the claimant towards
food, clothing, shelter and medical
attendance (iii) income of the respondent
(iv) income, if any of the claimant (v)
number of persons the respondent is
obliged to maintain.””
9. Witnesses have been examined by the learned Judge,
Family Court such as PW, OPW-1 to arrive at conclusion.
Exhibits 1 to 4 have been marked by petitioner and exhibits
A to B, B/1, C and D have been marked on behalf of the
Opp. Party. The factum of marriage has been proved as
indicated in paragraph-2 of the impugned judgment. The
following issues have been framed by the learned Family
Court:
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 10 of 30
“(I) Whether the petitioners are unable to maintain
themselves?
(II) Whether the opposite party having sufficient means
is neglecting or refusing to maintain the petitioners
without any lawful reason?”
10. The discussions of the materials on record such as –
pleadings, written statement, depositions have been noted in
detail by the learned Family Court and the issues have been
answered.
11. The paragraphs from Shamima Farooqui (supra) are
noted by this Court, the principles of law laid down therein
are applied to consider whether this Court can interfere with
the judgment in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The
relevant paragraphs from Shamima Farooqui (supra) are
reproduced herein :
“8. So far as the point no.1 relating to the inability of
the petitioners is concerned, the petitioner no.1 in her
affidavit evidence has stated specifically that she has
no independent source of income to maintain herself
and her minor daughter and her father is a very poor
man, who is also unable to maintain the petitioners. It
is seen that during her cross-examination, the
aforesaid evidence was not challenged specifically nor
did the opposite party adduce any evidence to
establish any independent source of income of the
petitioner no.1. In that view of the matter, this court
having found that the petitioner no.2 has no
independent source of income and the petitioner no.2
being the minor, has held that the petitioners are
unable to maintain themselves.
9. So far as the sufficient means of the opposite party
is concerned, law is well settled that “sufficient
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 11 of 30
means” always does not indicate any visible means or
property and if a person is healthy and able to bodied,
he should be held to have “sufficient means” to
maintain his wife, children and parents.
In the instant case, though the petitioner no.1
has stated in her affidavit evidence that the opposite
party owns and possesses sufficient agricultural land
and carrying business and his monthly income from
both the sources is Rs.30,000/- per month, during her
cross-examination., she stated that the opposite party
is an electrician by profession. The opposite party has
also stated in his objection that he is an electrical
mechanic. Therefore, in absence of any other
materials regarding the business or landed property of
the opposite party except the oral evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2, the alleged income of the opposite party
cannot be accepted. However, considering the fact
that the opposite party is an electrician by profession
and he being an able bodied man, this Court has held
that the opposite party has sufficient means to
maintain the petitioners.
10. So far as refusal and neglect on the part of the
opposite party in maintaining the petitioners is
concerned, the petitioner no.1 corroborating the
averments made in the petition has stated
categorically in her affidavit evidence that after
marriage, she was subjected to torture for non-
fulfillment of further demand of Rs.1,00,000/- and
consequent thereupon, she was also abused and her
daughter was also not taken care properly by the
opposite party and his family members. It is stated
that for the aforesaid reason, she was taken by her
father to her parental house on 24.09.2016. The
aforesaid evidence of the petitioner no.1 goes to show
about the neglect on the part of the opposite party in
maintaining them. The petitioners have been residing
separately from the opposite party since the year
2016, but there is nothing on record, which would go
to show that the opposite party has paid anythingRPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 12 of 30
towards their maintenance, rather the evidence of the
petitioners goes to show that the opposite party had
filed a proceeding for divorce vide C.P.No.186 of 2021
though he has subsequently withdrawn the same.
Though the opposite party gave suggestion during the
cross-examination of the petitioner no.1 that the
petitioner no.1 had filed a divorce proceeding vide C.P.
No.155 of 2017 in the court of the learned Civil Judge
(Sr. Divn.), Jagatsinghpur, but nothing was adduced
from the side of the opposite party to substantiate the
same. Therefore, considering the aforesaid oral
evidence of the petitioner no.1 and her father, this
court held that it is the opposite party, who has
neglected in maintaining the petitioners and now
refusing to maintain them. It is argued on behalf of the
opposite party that since this court has already
passed an interim order of maintenance in C.P.
No.186 of 2021, no further maintenance should be
awarded in favour of the opposite party. But the fact
remains that the C.P. No.186 of 2021 has been
disposed of in the mean time and such order of
maintenance passed for pendentlite maintenance of
the petitioner no.1 is no more in force. The opposite
party has not stated or proved any other ground to
deny paying maintenance to the petitioners. It is
already held that the opposite party has sufficient
means to maintain the petitioners. Therefore, the
opposite party should be directed to pay maintenance
to the petitioners.”
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
12. Further, analysis regarding quantum of maintenance
has been made in the judgment of the learned Family Court
that is considered by this Court for present adjudication:
“05.3 On perusal of the materials on record it is found
that the petitioner is now working as Assistant
Revenue Inspector in the Office of the Tahasildar,
Cuttack Sadar and according to her disclosureRPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 13 of 30
statements of assets and liabilities filed by the
opposite party, it is found that he has no income, but
according to the petitioner, the opposite party has
completed his Master in Engineering and earning from
his private job and from the variety store at Jaraka
Market. It is the duty of the husband to see the
welfare of the wife and to see that she is leading a live
at par to his life. In course of his evidence, he has
admitted of his service at Harman Company and then
Wipro earlier and so, he is quite capable of earning
and as they are staying separately, he is liable to pay
maintenance to the petitioner.”
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
judgment of the learned Family Court is erroneous as the
learned court has not appreciated evidence in its proper
perspective. Learned counsel has been apprised of the law
laid down in Shamima Farooqui (supra) and that it is
required to be shown from the written statement filed by the
petitioner and evidence laid before learned trial court in
terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in
Shamima Farooqui (supra), to support the contentions
raised.
14. Regarding the liability of the husband to pay the
maintenance at paragraphs 16, 17, 18 of Shamima
Farooqui (supra) the apex Court have extensively dealt with
the issue. The law laid down is applied by this Court to the
present adjudication and the paragraphs (from SCC Online
Print) are reproduced herein :
16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived
as a measure of social justice by this Court.
In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 14 of 30
SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], it has been
ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6)
“6. … Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social
justice and is specially enacted to protect
women and children and as noted by this Court
in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena
Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri) 508]
falls within the constitutional sweep of Article
15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution
of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose.
The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the
supply of food, clothing and shelter to the
deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental
rights and natural duties of a man to maintain
his wife, children and parents when they are
unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid
position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 787] .”
17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of
the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be
permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the
wife due to financial constraints as long as he is
capable of earning.
18. In this context, we may profitably quote a
passage from the judgment rendered by the High
Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila
Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR
1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus : (SCC
OnLine Del para 7)
7. … an able-bodied young man has to be
presumed to be capable of earning sufficient
money so as to be able reasonably to maintain
his wife and child and he cannot be heard to
say that he is not in a position to earn enough
to be able to maintain them according to the
family standard. It is for such able-bodied
person to show to the Court cogent grounds for
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 15 of 30
holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond
his control, to earn enough to discharge his
legal obligation of maintaining his wife and
child. When the husband does not disclose to
the Court the exact amount of his income, the
presumption will be easily permissible against
him.”
[Underlined to supply emphasis]
15. Regarding the plea of the petitioner-herein, before the
learned trial court that he is unable/in capable to pay, the
discussions and the observations made by the apex Court in
Shamima Farooqui (supra) at paragraphs-15, 16, 17, 18
and 19 are apposite and are reproduced herein:
“15. While determining the quantum of maintenance,
this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC
p. 12, para 8)
“8. … The court has to consider the status of
the parties, their respective needs, the capacity
of the husband to pay having regard to his
reasonable expenses for his own maintenance
and of those he is obliged under the law and
statutory but involuntary payments or
deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for
the wife should be such as she can live in
reasonable comfort considering her status and
the mode of life she was used to when she lived
with her husband and also that she does not feel
handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At
the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be
excessive or extortionate.”
16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as
a measure of social justice by this Court.
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 16 of 30
In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1
SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , it has been
ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6)
“6. … Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social
justice and is specially enacted to protect
women and children and as noted by this Court
in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena
Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508]
falls within the constitutional sweep of Article
15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution
of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose.
The object is to prevent vagrancy and
destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the
supply of food, clothing and shelter to the
deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental
rights and natural duties of a man to maintain
his wife, children and parents when they are
unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid
position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai
Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 :
2005 SCC (Cri) 787]”
17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of
the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be
permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the
wife due to financial constraints as long as he is
capable of earning.
18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage
from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi
in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander
Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174]
wherein it has been opined thus : (SCC OnLine Del
para 7)
7. … an able-bodied young man has to be
presumed to be capable of earning sufficient
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 17 of 30
money so as to be able reasonably to maintain
his wife and child and he cannot be heard to
say that he is not in a position to earn enough
to be able to maintain them according to the
family standard. It is for such able-bodied
person to show to the Court cogent grounds for
holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond
his control, to earn enough to discharge his
legal obligation of maintaining his wife and
child. When the husband does not disclose to
the Court the exact amount of his income, the
presumption will be easily permissible against
him.
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.”
16. By applying the above principles to the present case, it
is apparent that the present petitioner husband being able
bodied, has to be presumed to be capable of earning
sufficient money to maintain his wife, he cannot be heard to
say that he is not in a position to earn enough. It was for the
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 18 of 30
opposite party-husband to show cogent grounds to the
learned Family Court to hold that for reasons beyond his
control he is unable to earn enough, to discharge his legal
obligation. From reading of the judgment impugned it is
apparent that before the learned Judge, Family Court the
petitioner-herein has not made any such endeavor. There
was no legally permissible ground shown before the learned
Judge, Family Court to accept the plea of the petitioner that
he would not pay any maintenance.
To deny his employment and earning therefrom the
opposite party-husband did not bother to adduce any positive
evidence.
17. In Shamima Farooqui (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme
Court commenting on reduction of amount of maintenance
from ₹4,000/- to ₹2,000/- by order of the High Court
observed “it only reflects the non-application of mind and,
therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order…”
18. Following the above well settled legal principles, it has
to be and is held that it is the obligation of the husband to
maintain his wife and minor children, he cannot be heard to
plead that he is unable to maintain his wife due to financial
constraint as long as he is able bodied and/or educated
and/or capable of earning.
19. Nature and scope of Section 125 CrPC (since repealed
and substituted by pari materia provision contained in
Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023), the legislative policy behind
the enactment and the constitutional philosophy that has
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 19 of 30
guided such enactment have been elaborately discussed in
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh v Neha2.
The paragraphs from Rajnesh (supra) relied upon and
applied by this Court for deciding the present revision
application are reproduced herein (from SCC Online web
edition print):
“(d) Section 125 CrPC
32. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children
and parents in a summary proceeding.
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be
claimed by a person irrespective of the religious
community to which they belong. The purpose and
object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide immediate
relief to an applicant. An application under Section
125 CrPC is predicated on two conditions : (i) the
husband has sufficient means; and (ii) “neglects” to
maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain
herself. In such a case, the husband may be
directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly
sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is
awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of
the husband and other relevant factors.
33. The remedy provided by Section 125 is
summary in nature, and the substantive disputes
with respect to dissolution of marriage can be
determined by a civil court/Family Court in an
appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
2
( 2021 ) 2 SCC 324
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 20 of 30
34. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [Bhagwan
Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386 : 1975 SCC
(Cri) 563] the Supreme Court held that under
Section 125(1) CrPC only a wife who is “unable to
maintain herself” is entitled to seek maintenance.
The Court held : (SCC p. 392, para 19)
“19. The object of these provisions being to
prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate
has to find out as to what is required by the wife
to maintain a standard of living which is neither
luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly
consistent with the status of the family. The
needs and requirements of the wife for such
moderate living can be fairly determined, only if
her separate income, also, is taken into account
together with the earnings of the husband and
his commitments.”
(emphasis supplied)
35. 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 with 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
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 21 of 30
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
possible within sixty days from the date of service
of notice on the respondent.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
37. In Chaturbhuj v.Sita Bai [Chaturbhuj v. Sita
Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this Court held that the
object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish
a person for his past neglect, but to prevent
vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by
providing her food, clothing and shelter by a
speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of
social justice especially enacted to protect women
and children, and falls within the constitutional
sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of
the Constitution.
38. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr PC are
summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan
Singh v. Meena[Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena,
(2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015)
4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125
CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony,
anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had
left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable
arrangements could be made to enable her to
sustain herself and the children. Since it is the
sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial
support to the wife and minor children, the
husband was required to earn money even by
physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 22 of 30
avoid his obligation, except on any legally
permissible ground mentioned in the statute.
xxx xxx xxx
III. Criteria for determining quantum of
maintenance
77. The objective of granting interim/permanent
alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse 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 of the parties; reasonable
needs of the wife and dependent children; whether
the applicant is educated and professionally
qualified; whether the applicant has any
independent source of income; whether the income
is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same
standard of living as she was accustomed to in her
matrimonial home; whether the applicant was
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.
79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish
Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018)
2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial
position of the parents of the applicant wife, would
not be material while determining the quantum of
maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 23 of 30
conditional on the circumstance that the wife or
husband who makes a claim has 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 upon factual
situations; the court should mould the claim 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 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, to arrive at 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 and has
educational qualifications.
81. A careful and just balance must be drawn
between all relevant factors. The test for
determination of maintenance in matrimonial
disputes depends on the financial status of the
respondent, and the standard of living that the
applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356]
The maintenance amount awarded must beRPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 24 of 30
reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the
two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife
should neither be so extravagant which becomes
oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor
should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to
penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be
adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain
herself with reasonable comfort.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj
Hegde [Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC
OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the
following factors to be considered for determining
maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para 8)
“1. Status of the parties.
2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.
3. The independent income and property of
the claimant.
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.
8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.
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.
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 25 of 30
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.”
xxx xxx xxx
Discussion and Directions
109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the
divergent views of different High Courts on the date
from which maintenance must be awarded. Even
though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the
court to grant maintenance either from the date of
application or from the date of the order in Section
125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant
maintenance from the date of application in all
cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical
working of the provisions relating to maintenance,
we find that there is significant delay in disposal of
the applications for interim maintenance for years
on end. It would therefore be in the interests of
justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded
from the date of the application.
xxx xxx xxx
V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance
114. Enforcement of the order of maintenance is
the most challenging issue, which is encountered
by the applicants. If maintenance is not paid in a
timely manner, it defeats the very object of the
social welfare legislation. Execution petitions
usually remain pending for months, if not years,
which completely nullifies the object of the law. The
Bombay High Court in Sushila Viresh
Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva held that :
(SCC OnLine Bom para 7)
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 26 of 30
“7. … The direction of interim alimony and
expenses of litigation under Section 24 is one
of urgency and it must be decided as soon as
it is raised and … the law takes care that
nobody is disabled from prosecuting or
defending the matrimonial case by starvation
or lack of funds.”
xxx xxx xxx xxx
117. Section 125(3) CrPC provides that if the party
against whom the order of maintenance is passed
fails to comply with the order of maintenance, the
same shall be recovered in the manner as provided
for fines, and the Magistrate may award sentence
of imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one month, or until payment, whichever is earlier.
xxx xxx xxx
VI. Final Directions
127. In view of the foregoing discussion as
contained in Part B — I to V of this judgment, we
deem it appropriate to pass the following directions
in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be
awarded
131. We make it clear that maintenance in all
cases will be awarded from the date of filing the
application for maintenance, as held in part B-IV
above.”
20. Having perused the judgment of the learned Family
Court, the discussions in the judgment regarding
examination in chief of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the discussions
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 27 of 30
made on the pleadings of the parties; by applying the tests
laid down in Shamima Farooqui (supra) it has to be and is
held that there is nothing perceptible which would show that
the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court is a
sanctuary of errors. Further it has to be and is held that the
order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.
As observed by the Hon’ble apex Court, this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with,
as because, this Court would arrive at a different or another
conclusion.
21. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party submits that the
C.P. No.190 of 2023, in the meanwhile has been disposed of
by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar granting
decree of divorce as sought for by the Opp. Party. He refers
to paragraph 8 of the judgment and order dated 28.03.2026,
the said paragraph is reproduced herein from the
authenticated copy produced before this Court by the
learned counsel for the Opp. Party along with memo of date:
“Issue No.iv.
08. No doubt, the petitioner has already made out
a case of divorce by proving mental cruelty and
desertion against the respondent-husband. It
appears from the disclosure statement of petitioner
that she is 36 years old and her qualification is
B.Com. Their date of marriage is 10.12.2016 and
since 26.11.2018 they are staying separately. Her
monthly expenditure is at Rs.30,000/-. She is
working as ARI in the Office of the Tahasildar,
Sadar, Cuttack with a monthly salary of
Rs.31,000/-. According to her, the respondent has
completed his Masters degree in Engineering and
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 28 of 30
working in a private company and running a
variety store at Jaraka Market. On the other hand,
it appears from the disclosure statements of the
assets and liabilities of the respondent that he is
aged about 40 years. His educational qualification
is MBA. Their date of marriage is 10.12.2016 and
since 26.11.2018 they are staying separately. His
general monthly expenditure is at Rs.25,000/-. He
has mentioned his income as Nil. As per him, the
qualification of the petitioner is B.Com and she is
working as ARI in the Office of the Tahasildar,
Cuttack Sadar. It is submitted that the petitioner is
awarded with Rs.6,000/- per month as
maintenance in Criminal Proceeding No.07 of 2020
vide judgment dated 21.09.2024. Considering the
economic status of both the parties, their needs,
potentialities, social status, age, it would be just to
direct the respondent to continue such payment of
Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) per month to
the petitioner towards her monthly maintenance as
per Sec.25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.”
The memo shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be
updated.
22. In view of the judgment passed by the learned Judge,
Family Court, Bhubaneswar granting alimony at the rate
that was directed by earlier judgment dated 21.09.2024 in
CRP No.07 of 2020 along with decree of divorce, further,
continuance of the present RPFAM would not be in the
interest of justice.
23. Further it has to be held that this Court would not
interfere when in the case at hand substantial justice has
been done by the learned Family Court. The maintenance
amount of ₹6,000/- per month is not a huge fortune that
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 29 of 30
has been showered on the wife and it does not deserve
reduction.
24. In considered opinion of this Court, no case is made
out for revision of the judgment of the learned Judge,
Family Court, Bhubaneswar dated 21.09.2024 passed in
Criminal Proceeding No.07 of 2020. The revision application
being devoid of any merit fails and is dismissed.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 4th May, 2026/Rajesh
RPFAM No.1 of 2025 Page 30 of 30
