Orissa High Court
Mohammed Mayur Jani vs Arfeen Khan And Another …. Opp. … on 10 April, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.91 of 2026
Mohammed Mayur Jani .... Petitioner
Mr. Sritam Nayak, Advocate
On behalf of Mr. S. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
Arfeen Khan and another .... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
10.04.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No.
01. 1. The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before
this Court seeking revision of the judgment dated
14.11.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Nabarangpur in Cr.P. No.27 of 2025.
The said petition was filed under the provisions of
Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 by the wife in the marriage
aged about 29 years and minor son born out of the
wedlock aged about 1 year seeking monthly
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- for the wife and
Rs.10,000/- for the child per month. The petition was
favoured, however directing for payment of monthly
maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for the wife and Rs.4000/-
Page 1 of 7
for the child from the date of filing of application i.e.
10.02.2025.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that while deciding the application the
learned Judge, Family Court had not considered the
aspect of the income of the petitioner and also ignored
the material on record indicating the income of the
petitioner herein who was the opposite party.
4. The judgment indicates that the learned Judge,
Family Court relied upon the depositions of
P.W.1(wife), P.W.2( (another person). The opposite
party-husband did not examine any witnesses on his
behalf nor he deposed himself. No documents have
been marked on behalf of the petitioner-wife as well as
the opposite party-husband. Learned Judge, Family
Court, has relied on the assertions that the petitioner
herein the husband was employed as Senior Engineer
in JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. at Bijuri, Madhya Pradesh.
The learned Court has also taken note of the fact that
the salary of the petitioner-husband is Rs.80,000/- per
month, he has landed property along with his family.
The total income of the family is Rs.10.00 lakhs per
annum.
5. It was also contended before the learned Judge,
Family Court that the opposite party-husband is a
able-bodied person who can work to earn his livelihood
as well as maintain his family.
Page 2 of 7
6. Regarding the contentions raised before the
learned Judge, Family Court and now pleaded in the
revision application: that the husband is incapable of
earning, has been dealt with extensively and answered
what would be approach of the Court, by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid
Khan:(2015) 5 SCC 705. The said principles have also
been reiterated in Rajnesh v. Neha:(2021) 2 SCC
324. Paragraphs-14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) of
Shamima Farooqui (supra) SCC online print are
reproduced herein:
“14. Coming to the reduction of quantum by the
High Court, it is noticed that the High Court has
shown immense sympathy to the husband by
reducing the amount after his retirement. It has
come on record that the husband was getting a
monthly salary of Rs 17,654. The High Court,
without indicating any reason, has reduced the
monthly maintenance allowance to Rs 2000. In
today’s world, it is extremely difficult to conceive
that a woman of her status would be in a
position to manage within Rs 2000 per month. It
can never be forgotten that the inherent and
fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC
is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs
as well as mental agony and anguish that a
woman suffers when she is compelled to leave
her matrimonial home. The statute commands
that there have to be some acceptable
arrangements so that she can sustain herself.
The principle of sustenance get more heightened
when the children are with her. Be it clarified
that sustenance does not mean and can never
allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is
constrained to leave the martial home, should not
be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace
Page 3 of 7
and move hither and thither arranging for
sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a
life in the similar manner as she would have
lived in the house of her husband. And that is
where the status and strata of the husband
comes into play and that is where the legal
obligation of the husband becomes a prominent
one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant
of maintenance within the parameters of Section
125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can
live with dignity as she would have lived in her
matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to
become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no
shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125
CrPC can be passed if a person despite having
sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain
the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the
husband that he does not have the means to
pay, for he does not have a job or his business is
not doing well. These are only bald excuses and,
in fact, they have no acceptability in law. If the
husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a
position to support himself, he is under the legal
obligation to support his wife, for wife’s right to
receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC,
unless disqualified, is an absolute right.
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
Page 4 of 7
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. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai : (2008) 2 SCC
316, 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 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 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.”
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, 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
Page 5 of 7
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.”
7. To substantiate the submission made on behalf of
the husband before this Court to interfere in revision,
learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to refer
the pleadings of the defendant-husband before the
learned Judge, Family Court. The said pleadings are
not available before this Court having not been
Page 6 of 7
annexed. The depositions/cross-examination if any of
the parties has also to be considered.
8. The petitioner has adjournment to address
further regarding the issued indicated above.
9. The matter shall be listed in the week
commencing 11.05.2026.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Radha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RADHARANI JENA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 11-Apr-2026 17:40:58
Page 7 of 7
[ad_1]
Source link
