Disposed¶20

Chandrasekhar Nayak v. Harapriti Samal

Orissa HC8 Sept 2025CRLMP/654/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court CRLMP 654/2025; interim maintenance quantum reduced Rs.5000 to Rs.4000; Family Court No.1 Bhubaneswar order 21.09.2024 challenged; unemployed husband no source of income plea; arrears in two equal installments within one month; non-filing of income asset liability affidavit vis-a-vis Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 mandate; trial court free to proceed on default; interim order to merge with final order; Chittaranjan Dash J; disposed 08.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance quantum reduced to Rs.4000/- per month in place of Rs.5000/-; Petitioner to deposit the arrear in two equal installments within one month of the order; grant-findings otherwise left undisturbed and CRLMP disposed of. ¶20

Chandrasekhar Nayak Vs Harapriti Samal — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance direction of Rs.5000/- per month issued against the Petitioner calls for interference, in view of his submission that he is no longer in employment and has no source of income.

¶15

Court's answer

The impugned order does not require interference in its findings as to grant of interim maintenance.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Only the quantum is modified: interim maintenance reduced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.4000/-, with the Petitioner undertaking to comply by depositing the arrear in two equal installments within one month; the authenticity of his claim of having left the job is to be determined in the main application.

¶20

Key takeaways

The learned trial court remains free to proceed in accordance with law in the respective proceedings if the Petitioner fails to comply within the stipulated time.ratio¶20
The Petitioner is to take his plea before the learned trial court at the time of hearing in the main application.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, CRLMP No.654 of 2025 (Chittaranjan Dash, J.; order dated 08.09.2025): Petitioner-husband challenged the order dated 21.09.2024 of the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Bhubaneswar directing him to pay Rs.5000/- p.m. to the Opposite Party-wife towards interim maintenance from 11.03.2024 (date of application), claiming he had left employment and had no income. The Court found no ground to interfere with the findings granting interim maintenance, noting the Petitioner had not filed the income/asset/liability statement required per the mandate in Rajnesh -Vs.- Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, and that the wife alleged substantial salary income. Only the quantum was modified to Rs.4000/- in place of Rs.5000/-, the Petitioner undertaking to deposit the arrear in two equal installments within one month, failing which the trial court was left free to proceed according to law; his plea of unemployment was left to be tested in the main application. CRLMP disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMP No.654 of 2025

¶3

Chandrasekhar Nayak …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Brahmananda Tripathy, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Harapriti Samal Opp. Party

¶7

Mr. Sanjeeb Chakravarty, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

ORDER

Order No.

08.09.2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

¶14

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Bhubaneswar wherein the learned court has passed the order directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the Opposite Party-wife towards interim maintenance with effect from 11.03.2024 i.e. the date of application.

¶15

Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of the hearing, submitted that the Petitioner is no more in employment and has no source of income to meet the expenses so also to pay the interim maintenance awarded in favour of the Opposite Party-wife.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-wife, Mr. Chakravarthy, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioner has not filed the statement regarding income, asset and liability before the learned court below. However, he has sufficient income to meet the direction passed by the learned court which he is under obligation to deposit in order to maintain his legally married wife. He further submitted that this is an interim order which would merge with the final order and the Petitioner may take such plea before the court in the main application.

¶17

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Petitioner has not furnished the statement with regard to his income, asset and liability as is required to be filed pursuant to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajnesh -Vs. - Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. The Petitioner would take the plea before the learned trial court at the time of hearing in the main application. As disclosed from the order impugned, it is the case of the Opp. Party-wife that the Petitioner was having substantial income from his salary and has sufficient means to the maintenance awarded in the interim.

¶18

Be that as it may, having regard to the submissions of the parties and the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 although the order does not require interference in the

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

findings as to grant of interim maintenance, keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner shall cooperate in complying with the order and that his submissions that he has left the job for the time being, the authenticity whereof shall be determined in the main application, the order with regard to the quantum is only modified to the extent of Rs.4000/- in place of Rs.5000/-, which the learned undertakes that the Petitioner shall comply by depositing the arrear in two equal installments within a period of one month from the date of this order. However, the learned trial court is free to proceed in accordance with law in the respective proceedings, in case the Petitioner fails to comply within the time stipulated. With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMP stands disposed of.

¶21

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶22

AKPradhan

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 09-Sep-2025 17:04:54

¶25

Page 3 of 3

Chandrasekhar Nayak v. Harapriti Samal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasekhar Nayak v. Harapriti Samal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinodini Rai @ Barman Vs State of Odisha

Kiran Kumar Panda@Rikan Vs Commnr. Cum Secy., Home Affairs Dept., Bbsr

Aditya Kumar Das Vs Ranjita Biswal

Barada Vs State

Harekrushna Parida Vs State of Odisha

Prabhanjan Sahoo @ Sahu Vs State of Odisha