Dismissed¶26

Sunam Chandra Parichha v. Bastirani Parichha

Orissa HC25 Sept 2025CRLREV/231/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack — CRLREV No.231 of 2025, decided 25.09.2025 by R.K. Pattanaik, J. — Sunam Chandra Parichha v. Bastirani Parichha — Criminal revision against confirmation by the Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi (Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024, judgment dated 2nd September, 2024) of an ex parte maintenance order in M.C. Case No.102 of 2019 under Section 12 of the D.V. Act — Rs.5000/- monthly maintenance plus Rs.3000/- towards alternative accommodation (Rs.8000/- in total) — plea for remand to lead evidence after ex parte default rejected — petitioner's monthly income Rs.59,920/- — maintenance held not excessive — revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Monthly alimony (maintenance) allowed in favour of the opposite party was not found to be excessive and should not be disturbed. ¶24

Sunam Chandra Parichha Vs Bastirani Parichha — Domestic Violence | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024 confirming the maintenance order deserves interference, and whether the matter should be remanded to the learned Court below to enable the petitioner, who was set ex parte in M.C. Case No.102 of 2019, to lead evidence. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The Court cannot remand the matter back for a fresh decision by the learned Court below merely on the plea that the petitioner was set ex parte.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Monthly alimony (maintenance) allowed in favour of the opposite party was not found to be excessive and should not be disturbed.

¶24

Key takeaways

A sum of Rs.3000/- towards alternative accommodation is not excessive, the opposite party staying separately from the petitioner.ratio¶24
No case is made out for remand; the impugned judgment is perfectly in accordance with law and deserves no interference.ratio¶24
The impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024 does not suffer from any infirmity.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRLREV No.231 of 2025 (High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, R.K. Pattanaik, J., order dated 25.09.2025) — Dismissed. Criminal revision against the judgment dated 2nd September, 2024 of the learned Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024, whereby the ex parte maintenance order in M.C. Case No.102 of 2019 (proceeding initiated on an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act) directing Rs.8000/- in total — Rs.5000/- towards maintenance and Rs.3000/- towards alternative accommodation — stood confirmed. Petitioner, set ex parte for default in appearance, sought an opportunity to lead evidence with restoration of the appeal. Held: with the petitioner's monthly income of Rs.59,920/- (November, 2021), the maintenance is not at all exorbitant and the alternative-accommodation sum not excessive; monthly alimony not found excessive should not be disturbed; the Court cannot remand merely on the plea of ex parte proceedings and no case for remand is made out; the impugned judgment is in accordance with law, suffers no infirmity and deserves no interference.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.231 of 2025

¶3

Sunam Chandra Parichha

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate

¶6

-Versus-

¶7

Bastirani Parichha

¶8

…. Opposite Party

¶9

Mr. H.B. Dash, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER 25.09.2025

Order No.

Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶16

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment as at Annexure-2 in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024 of the learned Sessions Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi on the grounds stated.

¶17

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the maintenance was allowed in favour of the opposite party by the learned S.D.J.M., Parlakhemundi in M.C. Case No.102 of 2019 and it was an ex parte order and was challenged in the appeal before the learned Court below but the same was confirmed. The further submission is that the petitioner should be allowed an opportunity to submit evidence

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

before the learned Court below with the restoration of appeal for disposal of the same in accordance with law as it is necessary in the interest of justice.

¶20

Mr. H.B. Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the impugned judgment dated 2^nd September, 2024 in the appeal by the learned Court below is perfectly justified as the order of maintenance is for an amount of Rs.5000/- only with a sum of Rs.3000/- payable towards alternative accommodation, as the opposite party is staying separately. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having monthly income of Rs.59,920/- as on November, 2021, hence, the amount of maintenance allowed is not on the higher side.

¶21

Perused the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-2. In fact, on an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act in M.C. Case No.102 of 2019 at the behest of the opposite party, the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, who defaulted in appearance and was set ex parte leading to the maintenance directed Rs.8000/-, in total and instead of the ex parte order being challenged with any such application from the side of the petitioner, the appeal was filed before the learned Court below but the order of maintenance stood confirmed.

¶22

On a reading of Annexure-2, this Court finds that the petitioner was having a monthly income of Rs.59,920/- by then. It is claimed that the opposite party is working as a Nurse in a private hospital and having independent income but Rs.5000/towards maintenance, according to the Court, is not at all

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

exorbitant. That apart, the opposite party is staying separately from the petitioner and hence, a sum of Rs.3000/- towards alternative accommodation is also not excessive. This Court, considering the plea of the petitioner notwithstanding his default before the Court of first instance but having challenged the order of maintenance in appeal and monthly alimony allowed in favour of the opposite party since not found to be excessive, is of the view that the same should not be disturbed. The Court cannot remand the matter back for a fresh decision by the learned Court below merely considering the plea of the petitioner that he was set ex parte in M.C. Case No.102 of 2019 and hence, should be allowed to lead evidence in appeal. Since no case is made out for remand, the conclusion is that the impugned judgment is perfectly in accordance with law, hence, deserves no interference. In other words, the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2024 does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶25