Dismissed¶18

Dibakar Sethy v. Mitali Madhusmita Sethy

Interim maintenance – challenge to Family Court order

Orissa HC18 Aug 2025CRLMP/378/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; Family Court Kendrapara; quashing of maintenance order sought; Rs.5,000 p.m. to wife and Rs.3,000 p.m. to child from 08.06.2022; land-purchase payment held to have no nexus with maintenance; wife's literacy/qualification cannot be thrust by husband; dismissed at admission stage; CRLMP disposed of.

What did the court decide?

There is absolutely no material to assail the impugned order with regard to interim maintenance; this Court is not inclined to interfere with it. ¶16

Dibakar Sethy Vs Mitali Madhusmita Sethy — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Kendrapara is liable to be challenged/quashed. +2 more

¶10

Court's answer

There is absolutely no material to assail the impugned order with regard to interim maintenance; this Court is not inclined to interfere with it.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The money allegedly paid was in connection with the purchase of land, if at all, and has absolutely no nexus with the grant of interim maintenance by the learned Judge Family Court.

¶16

Key takeaways

That the wife is qualified enough to earn her livelihood cannot be the choice of the husband and cannot be thrust upon the wife as a matter of right; such an analogy depends on the fact situation and cannot be generalized, and mere qualification itself cannot earn a livelihood.ratio¶16
The impugned order was passed exhaustively, taking into account the income of the Petitioner and the amount required for the sustenance of the Opposite Party-Wife and the Child, and hence warrants no interference.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim maintenance — challenge to Family Court order — dismissed at admission stage. The High Court of Orissa (Chittaranjan Dash, J.) refused to interfere with the order dated 22.01.2025 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara in I.A. No.96 of 2022 arising out of CRP No.101 of 2022, whereby the Petitioner-husband was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to the child as interim maintenance from 08.06.2022. Held: (i) the money alleged to have been paid by the husband was in connection with purchase of land and has 'absolutely no nexus' with the grant of interim maintenance; (ii) the wife being qualified enough to earn her livelihood 'can’t be the choice of the husband' and cannot be thrust upon her as a matter of right — mere qualification itself cannot earn a livelihood; (iii) the impugned order was passed exhaustively considering the Petitioner's income and the sustenance needs of the wife and child. The application was found devoid of merit and dismissed at the stage of admission; the CRLMP stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 378 of 2025

¶2

Dibakar Sethy …. Petitioner

¶3

Mr. B.R. Maharatha, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

…. Mitali Madhusmita Sethy Opp. Party

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

¶8

ORDER Order No. 18.08.2025

¶9

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶10

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Kendrapara in I.A. No.96 of 2022 arising out of CRP No.101 of 2022 wherein the learned Judge Family Court, Kendrapara directed the Petitioner as husband to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) per month to wife-Opposite Party No.1 herein and a sum of Rs.3000/(Rupees Three Thousand Only) per month to the child, the Opposite Party No.2 herein, as interim maintenance from the date of filing of the petition i.e. with effect from 08.06.2022.

¶11

The grounds in assailing the impugned order as set-forth in the application by the Petitioner is to the effect that the Opposite Party prior to the marriage with the Petitioner had

¶12

earlier married which got dissolved and a sum of Rs.9,00,000/(Rupees Nine lakh Only) was awarded towards permanent alimony. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.1 got married to the suppressing her earlier marriage and divorce and continued the conjugal life and the couple has been blessed with the child i.e. Opposite Party No.2.

¶13

According to the Petitioner, he paid a sum of Rs.4,60,000/- (Rupees Four lakh Sixty Thousand Only) to the Opposite Party on 03.05.2021 towards purchase of land. According to the Petitioner, he incurred a loan to the tune of Rs.8,80,000/- (Rupees Eight lakh Eighty Thousand Only) from SBI and Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) from ICICI Bank and issued two cheques in favour of the father of the Opposite Party towards purchase of land.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the aforesaid amount has already been paid to the Opposite Party, she is not entitled to further amount towards interim maintenance. According to the Petitioner, the Opposite Party Wife is a literate lady and her education is sufficient enough by which she can earn for herself as well as to maintain the Opposite Party No.2. With the above, the Petitioner submits that the impugned order being not in accordance with law is liable to be quashed.

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

Having regard to the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the grounds setforth, there is absolutely no material to assail the impugned order with regard to interim maintenance. The amount of money paid as alleged in the application, is in connection to the purchase of land, if at all and has absolutely no nexus with the grant of interim maintenance by the learned Judge Family Court. As far as the contentions that the Opposite Party No.1 is qualified enough to earn her livelihood can’t be the choice of the husband and can’t as well be thrust upon the wife as a matter right. Such an analogy comes in a given fact situation and cant be generalized. Moreover, mere qualification itself can’t earn the livelihood and the question that the wife has to make effort to get her engaged in work for livelihood was never a condition of the husband while engaged in marriage.

¶17

Consequently, there is no other material before this Court to assail the impugned order and the same being passed exhaustively, taking into account the income of the Petitioner as well as the amount required for the sustenance of the Opposite Party-Wife and the Child and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and hence ordered.

¶18

In the result, the application being devoid of merit stands dismissed at the stage of admission. As a necessary

¶19

Page 3 of 4

¶20

corollary, the CRLMP stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the court concerned forthwith for reference.

¶21

(Chittaranjan Dash)

Judge

Sarbani

Page 4 of 4

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: SARBANI DASH Designation: Junior StenographerReason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 19-Aug-2025 16:27:32

Dibakar Sethy v. Mitali Madhusmita Sethy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dibakar Sethy v. Mitali Madhusmita Sethy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Chandra Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Sailabala Mallick @ Sailabala Malik Vs Superintendent of Police, Bhadrak

Ganesh Prasad Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sudhamayee Das Vs State of Orissa

Tapas Ranjan Moharana Vs State of Odisha

Ramachandra Nahak Vs State of Odisha