Orissa High Court
Rabi Narayan Mishra vs Harapriya Acharya @ on 12 February, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 183 of 2022
An application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 read with Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.
Rabi Narayan Mishra .... Petitioner
Versus
Harapriya Acharya @
Mishra and another .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case :
For Petitioner : Mr. Biswa Prakash Dhal, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Suraj Mohanty, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
———————————————————————————
Date of hearing : 12.02.2026
Date of Judgment : 12.02.2026
———————————————————————————-
I.A. No. 67 of 2026 and RPFAM No. 183 of 2022
PER JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHR SAHOO :
1. Petitioner-husband is before this Court challenging
the judgment dated 12.04.2022 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Puri.
By the said judgment the petition filed by the wife and
the minor child then aged about 2 years seeking monthly
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 1 of 12
maintenance under section 125,Cr.P.C. (since repealed
and substituted by pari materia provision contained in
BNSS, 2023) was allowed. However, instead of granting
maintenance of ₹15,000/- as prayed for, ₹3,000/- per
month was directed to be paid for wife and ₹2,000/-
per month to the minor child from the date of application i.e.
16.09.2017.
2. The I.A. No. 67 of 2026 has been filed by the wife and
minor child seeking variation of interim order interdicting
the execution of judgment directing payment of
maintenance.
3. The judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court is
challenged in this revision application.
4. By order dated 20.02.2024 when the matter was
listed for the first time, the entire amount of money
remaining unpaid though due since 2017, the coordinate
Bench had directed for deposit of ₹50,000/- in the
Registry as a pre-condition for issuance of notice.
5. By order dated 13.11.2024 another coordinate Bench
allowed the petitioner to take back the Demand Draft
which by then was outdated and ₹50,000/- was directed
to be paid to the opposite party. By the said order dated
13.11.2024 passed by the coordinate Bench the
execution proceeding filed by the opposite party for
getting amount of maintenance which was about Rupees
three lakh by then was interdicted by directing stay of
(Non-bailable Warrant) (NBW) and (Distress Warrant)
(DW) issued by the executing court vide order dated
13.09.2024 in Criminal Proceeding (Execution Case)
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 2 of 12
No.71 of 2023 then pending before the learned Judge,
Family Court, Puri.
6. In the I.A. it is stated supported by affidavit and
submitted by the decree holder wife in the marriage and
child represented by mother that apart from the amount
of ₹50,000/-, nothing has been paid.
7. As the petition is heard on merits, the learned
counsel for the petitioner candidly states that the
petitioner has not paid any other amount in any other
proceeding which can be a relevant consideration.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has very good reasons for
not to pay amount and remain in default of the direction
for payment of maintenance passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court.
8. From 16.09.2017 till today i.e. 16.01.2026 for the 89
months, the amount of maintenance due comes to
89x₹5,000/- = ₹4,45,000/-.
Apparently, petitioner has taken advantage of
pendency of the present application i.e. RPFAM before
this Court has sought stay of warrant and stalled the
execution.
9. In Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in AIR 2021 SC 569 :
2020 INSC 631 : (2021) 2 SCC 324, it has been held
and laid down that the amount directed to be paid as
maintainable in proceedings under section 125 of Cr.P.C.
is in the nature of money decree. The relevant paragraphs
those are applied by this Court to decide and arrive at
conclusion are reproduced herein and underlined.
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 3 of 12
“12. Given the backdrop of the facts of the present
case, which reveal that the application for interim
maintenance under Section 125 CrPC 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.
Guidelines/Directions on maintenance
13. Maintenance laws have been enacted as a
measure of social justice to provide recourse to
dependent 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:
“15. (3) 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.
14. Krishna Iyer, J. in his judgment in Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [Ramesh
Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal, (1978) 4 SCC 70
: 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] held that the object of
maintenance laws is : (SCC p. 74, para 9)
“9. This provision is a measure of social
justice and specially enacted to protect
women and children and falls within the
constitutional sweep of Article 15(3)
reinforced by Article 39. We have no
doubt that sections of statutes calling for
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 4 of 12
construction by courts are not petrified
print but vibrant words with social
functions to fulfil. The brooding presence
of the constitutional empathy for the
weaker sections like women and
children must inform interpretation if it
has to have social relevance. So viewed,
it is possible to be selective in picking out
that interpretation out of two alternatives
which advances the cause — the cause
of the derelicts.”
38. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC 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 avoid his obligation, except on any
legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute.
xxx xxx xxx
II. Payment of Interim Maintenance
62. The proviso to Section 24 of the HMA (inserted
vide Act 49 of 2001 w.e.f. 24-9-2001), and the third
proviso to Section 125 CrPC (inserted vide Act 50 of
2001 w.e.f. 24-9-2001) provide that the proceedings
for interim maintenance, shall as far as possible, be
disposed of within 60 days from the date of service of
notice on the contesting spouse. Despite the statutory
provisions granting a time-bound period for disposal
of proceedings for interim maintenance, we find that
applications remain pending for several years in most
of the cases. The delays are caused by various
factors, such as tremendous docket pressure on the
Family Courts, repetitive adjournments sought by
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 5 of 12
parties, enormous time taken for completion of
pleadings at the interim stage itself, etc. Pendency of
applications for maintenance at the interim stage for
several years defeats the very object of the
legislation.
63. At present, the issue of interim maintenance is
decided on the basis of pleadings, where some
amount of guesswork or rough estimation takes
place, so as to make a prima facie assessment of the
amount to be awarded. It is often seen that both
parties submit scanty material, do not disclose the
correct details, and suppress vital information, which
makes it difficult for the Family Courts to make an
objective assessment for grant of interim
maintenance. While there is a tendency on the part of
the wife to exaggerate her needs, there is a
corresponding tendency by the husband to conceal
his actual income. It has therefore become necessary
to lay down a procedure to streamline the
proceedings, since a dependent wife, who has no
other source of income, has to take recourse to
borrowings from her parents/relatives during the
interregnum to sustain herself and the minor
children, till she begins receiving interim
maintenance.
xxx xxx xxx
(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 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
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 6 of 12
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 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
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 7 of 12
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.
(d) Maintenance of Minor children
91. The living expenses of the child would include
expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical
expenses, education of children. Extra coaching
classes or any other vocational training courses to
complement the basic education must be factored in,
while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a
reasonable amount to be awarded for
extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an overly
extravagant amount which may be claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must be
normally borne by the father. If the wife is working
and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared
proportionately between the parties.
Discussion and Directions on Enforcement of
orders of Maintenance
125. The order or decree of maintenance may be
enforced like a decree of a civil court, through the
provisions which are available for enforcing a money
decree, including civil detention, attachment of
property, etc. as provided by various provisions of the
CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read
with Order 21.
126. Striking off the defence of the respondent is an
order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if
the courts find default to be wilful and contumacious,
particularly to a dependent unemployed wife, and
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 8 of 12
minor children. Contempt proceedings for wilful
disobedience may be initiated before the appropriate
court.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of
maintenance
130. For determining the quantum of maintenance
payable to an applicant, the court shall take into
account the criteria enumerated in Part B — III of the
judgment. The aforesaid factors are however not
exhaustive, and the court concerned may exercise its
discretion to consider any other factor(s) which may
be necessary or of relevance in the facts and
circumstances of a case.
(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.
(e) Enforcement/Execution of orders of
maintenance
132. For enforcement/execution of orders of
maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of
maintenance may be enforced under Section 28-A of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Section 20(6) of the DV
Act; and Section 128 of CrPC, as may be applicable.
The order of maintenance may be enforced as a
money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of
the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60
read with Order 21.
134. A copy of this judgment be communicated by the
Secretary General of this Court, to the Registrars of
all High Courts, who would in turn circulate it to all
the District Courts in the States. It shall be displayed
on the website of all District Courts/Family
Courts/Courts of Judicial Magistrates for awareness
and implementation.”
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 9 of 12
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he has the predicament of not receiving
instruction from the petitioner.
11. Petitioner is enjoying the stay order granted by
this Court. The execution lunched by the wife and
child is not progressing. In considered opinion of this
Court such situation by intervention of this Court
would be contrary to the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra).
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also asked
whether to stall the further proceeding in the pending
Execution Proceeding, petitioner will deposit any
amount. Even after more than three years of filing of
the application, it is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that he has no instruction in that
regard.
The learned counsel for the petitioner takes the
plea that the petitioner should be given enough time
to comply with the decree. In considered opinion of
this Court, after the petition was filed on 28.02.2022
before this Court, about four years have passed,
which even in most conservative estimate is enough of
time and this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction
contrary to law and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to extend any further time in any manner
whatsoever.
13. In Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi
: (2021) 6 SCC 418 it has been held and laid down by
the larger bench of the Apex Court that execution
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 10 of 12
should not be kept pending. At paragraph 42 of SCC
it has been laid down
42. All courts dealing with suits and
execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow
the below mentioned directions:
xxx xxx xxx
42.6. In a money suit, the court must
invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring
immediate execution of decree for payment of
money on oral application.
42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before
settlement of issues, the defendant may be
required to disclose his assets on oath, to the
extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The
court may further, at any stage, in appropriate
cases during the pendency of suit, using powers
under Section 151 CPC, demand security to
ensure satisfaction of any decree.
42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under
Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not
issue notice on an application of third party
claiming rights in a mechanical manner.
Further, the court should refrain from
entertaining any such application(s) that has
already been considered by the court while
adjudicating the suit or which raises any such
issue which otherwise could have been raised
and determined during adjudication of suit if
due diligence was exercised by the applicant.
xxx xxx xxx
42.10. The court must in appropriate cases
where it finds the objection or resistance or
claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-
rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant
compensatory costs in accordance with Section
35-A.
42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term “… in
name of the judgment-debtor or by another
person in trust for him or on his behalf” should
be read liberally to incorporate any other person
from whom he may have the ability to derive
share, profit or property.
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 11 of 12
42.12. The executing court must dispose of
the execution proceedings within six months
from the date of filing, which may be extended
only by recording reasons in writing for such
delay.
42.13. The executing court may on
satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to
execute the decree without police assistance,
direct the police station concerned to provide
police assistance to such officials who are
working towards execution of the decree.
Further, in case an offence against the public
servant while discharging his duties is brought
to the knowledge of the court, the same must be
dealt with stringently in accordance with law.”
14. In view of discussions made above regarding the
facts of the case and applying the law laid down by
the Apex Court as indicated above, the order dated
13.11.2024 is modified. The learned executing court
shall proceed with the execution. I.A. is favoured and
disposed of.
Copy of this order shall be communicated to the
learned executing court by the Registry.
15. List in the week commencing 23.03.2026. Liberty
to mention.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Digitally Signed The 12th February, 2026/dutta
Signed by: AJIT KUMAR DUTTA
Reason: Authentication
Location: ohc
Date: 06-Mar-2026 19:21:13
RPFAM NO. 183 of 2022
Page 12 of 12