Partly allowed

Ramakanta Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC2 Feb 2023CRLMC/192/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a special leave application challenging a Distortion Warrant issued for maintenance arrears. The court held that the alleged adultery ground is for the appellate jurisdiction to examine and stayed the warrant only after the petitioner deposits the due arrears.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 12,000/- maintenance arrears within 15 days to stay execution of Distortion Warrant; matter remanded for consideration by Sessions Court on appeal.

Ramakanta Mohanty Vs State of Odisha — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 192 of 2023

¶3

Ramakanta Mohanty …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Sambit Biswal, Advocate & Associates

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Another

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. S.S.Mohapatra, ASC

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER 02.02.2023

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the State-opposite party No.1.

¶15

Prayer in the present case is to quash the D.W. by order dated 4^th January, 2023 passed in proceeding under Section 12 of the D.V.Act by court of learned JMFC, Tirtol in D.V.Misc. Case No.34 of 2022 on the grounds inter alia that an interim order of maintenance in favour of opposite party No.2 cannot be sustained in law for the fact that she is guilty of adultery.

¶16

A copy of the impugned order is at Anneuxre-1.

¶17

By order dated 4^th June, 2023, D.W. has been issued seeking realization of the maintenance dues from the petitioner arising out of D.V. Misc. Case No.34 of 2022.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opposite party No.2 is not entitled to any such maintenance as she is living in

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

adultery. In fact, it is claimed that in the proceeding before the learned court below, the petitioner entered appearance and filed an objection stating the fact as to the conduct of opposite party No.2 but the same was ignored and thereafter interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month was allowed which is unjustified. It is further submitted that the said order of interim maintenance in terms of Section 23 of D.V. Act is under challenge before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2022 and the same has been admitted. Considering the above facts, the impugned order under Anneuxre-2 is not tenable in law.

¶21

The petitioner did appear before the learned court below and filed a show cause. Considering the objection of the petitioner, as it appears, the learned court below directed interim maintenance for an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of opposite party No.2. It is challenged on the ground that opposite party No.2 is not eligible and entitled to any maintenance as she is living a life of adultery. It is submitted that the said fact was loss sight of by the learned court below while allowing such maintenance against the petitioner. In any case, the petitioner has approached the appellate court in the meantime against the order of maintenance under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act.

¶22

For realization of the maintenance dues, the impugned order of Annexure-3 is passed and D.W. has been issued against the petitioner. This Court does not find any reason to intervene and interfere with the impugned order i.e. Annneuxre-3 at this stage on the ground of adultery alleged against opposite party No.2, a fact which is to be examined in the D.V. proceeding. As in the meantime the petitioner has approached the learned Sessions court in appeal, the said aspect can also be examined, as to if opposite party No.2 is entitled to interim maintenance as against the allegation of adultery.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

The Court is of the considered view that leaving the said question open for a decision in appeal before the learned Sessions court, the CRLMC should be disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to pay the arrear dues of maintenance as has been presently allowed in favour of opposite party No.2 as a condition precedent to stay execution of the D.W. which would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

¶25

9. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶26

In the result, CRLMC stands disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to raise all or any such ground before the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur in Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2022 for its consideration and decision and also to deposit the arrear maintenance dues of three months i.e. Rs. 12,000/- payable to opposite party No.2 and such payment shall be made within 15 days and on proof of such payment made and received by opposite party No.2, the execution of D.W. shall be stayed.

¶27

A certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶28

[[ kabita s

¶29

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Ramakanta Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakanta Mohanty v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biprabar Bai Vs State of Odisha

Prafulla Chandra Mishra Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Sambit Kumar Das@Lipu@Samiti Das Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha(Vig.)

Rabindra Bishoyi@Rabi Bishoyi Vs State of Odisha

Shakti Prasad Samal Vs State of Odisha