Dismissed

Subhasis Pani v. Itishree Panda@Pany

Orissa HC7 Aug 2023RPFAM/2/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa dismissed a revision petition challenging a Family Court order rejecting the petitioner's plea that Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance became inexecutable after a separate civil decree for divorce and permanent alimony awarded. The Court held that the Section 125 order remains executable.

What did the court decide?

The RPFAM stood dismissed; interim order dated 12th April, 2019 was vacated.

Subhasis Pani Vs Itishree Panda@Pany — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

RPFAM No. 2 OF 2019

¶5

Subhasis Pani

¶6

…. Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Dayanidhi Mishra, Advocate

¶8

-versus-

¶9

…. Itishree Panda @ Pany and another Opp. Parties Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

07.08.2023

RPFAM No. 2 OF 2019 & RPFAM No. 284 OF 2018

¶16

¶17

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶18

Order dated 11^th December, 2018 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in Cr.P. No.46 of 2018 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby an application filed by the Petitioner to hold the proceeding under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. not maintainable, has been rejected.

¶19

It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner that vide order dated 6^th May, 2016 (Annexure-2) passed in Cr.P. No.145 of 2015, learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of the Opposite Parties. In the meantime, marriage between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce vide judgment dated 16^th March, 2018 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in C.P. Case No.47 of 2016. In the said proceeding, a permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No.1. Thus, the

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09

¶24

Opposite Part No.1 is no more entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. However, the Opposite Parties filed Cr.P. No.46 of 2018 under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C. for realization of arrear maintenance granted in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The Petitioner on his appearance filed an application on 3^rd December, 2018 to hold the execution proceeding not maintainable. The said application was rejected.

¶25

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that after passing of the decree in C.P. Case No.47 of 2016 granting divorce and permanent alimony, the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. gets merged with this said order. As such, the Opposite Parties are not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned Judge, Family Court without considering the same, rejected the application. Hence, this RPFAM has been filed.

¶26

Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that there is no bar under law for realization of arrear maintenance granted under Section 125 C.P.C. after passing of a decree of divorce and permanent alimony in a civil proceeding. The order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has not yet been set aside or modified. Thus, it is executable. Further, the Opposite Party No.2 is the daughter, who was not a party to the civil proceeding. He further submits that the permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- has not yet been paid to the Opposite Party No.1. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.

¶27

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that a decree for divorce and permanent alimony shall not stand on the way of executing an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in accordance with law.

¶28

Page 2 of 3

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09

¶32

In the instant case, the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has never been set aside or modified. Thus, it is executable in accordance with law. Doctrine of merger as submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner does not apply to the present case. It further appears that the permanent alimony of Rs.10,00,000/- has not yet been paid to the Opposite Party No.1Wife. Grant of permanent alimony does not debar the Opposite Party No.2-minor daughter to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶33

In that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-4.

¶34

Accordingly, this RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶35

Interim order dated 12^th April, 2019 passed in I.A. No.49 of 2019 stands vacated.

¶36

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶37

¶38

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶39

Page 3 of 3

Subhasis Pani v. Itishree Panda@Pany

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhasis Pani v. Itishree Panda@Pany

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

Samarendra Samal Vs Radha Gobinda Samal

Nirupama Sahoo Vs Jitendra Pradhan

Indian Tea Provision Vs Rama K.Dasmohapatra

Satyanarayan Singh Vs Mahadev Mohanta

Ratikanta Barik Vs Laxmipriya Barik

Pupuni@Kallola Malla Vs Sujata@Puspa Mohanty