Basanti Pandab Vs Subrat Pandab

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 30^th April, 2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2024 by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack and to confirm the order dated 20^th July, 2023 of learned J.M.F.C.-I (Cog. Taking), Cuttack in D.V. Misc. Case No.157 of 2022 on the grounds stated therein.

¶17

Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below committed gross error in overruling the decision of the Court of first instance in D.V. proceeding as therein the opposite party was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month in terms of Section 23 of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005. The further submission is that the impugned order at Annexure-4 setting aside the

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

interim order was on the premise that there is no law to provide maintenance to the petitioner by the opposite party, who happens to be the elder brother of her late husband. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel cited a decision of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Vrs. Lata & others (2019) 6 SCR 283 to contend that the opposite party is liable to pay the maintenance and therefore, the impugned order in Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2024 is legally not tenable and hence, the liable to be interfered with.

¶20

Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, justifies the impugned order at Annexure-4 and he submits that the petitioner is having sufficient means of income from the landed properties and in support thereof, the documents were filed before the learned Court below and therefore, the decision of the Court of first instance in D.V. proceeding is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that even though the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4 is not properly worded, however, the decision is unassailable as the petitioner is having source of income to survive and not a dependent.

¶21

Perused the impugned order i.e. Annexure-4. On the face of it, the conclusion reached at by the learned Sessions Court is erroneous in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Ajay Kumar (supra). As far as the source of income of the petitioner is concerned, no discussion has been made by the learned Court below, while disposing of the appeal except concluding that a person, who is having source of income is not entitled to maintenance. The Court is of the view that a detailed

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

discussion should have been made by the learned Court below with reference to the evidence received from both the sides. In absence of any such discussion therein, the Court is of the view that the impugned order at Annexure-4 cannot be sustained in law, furthermore when, the conclusion was also based on a wrong premise that law does not allow any such demand of maintenance from the opposite party, who is her relative. Having said that, the Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-4 and direct the learned Court below to freshly consider such demand of maintenance by the petitioner and to dispose of the appeal on merit referring to all the material evidence received and on record.

¶24

6. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the revision petition is allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 30^th April, 2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.116 of 2024 of the learned 3^rd Additional District Judge, Cuttack is hereby set aside. It is further directed that the appeal upon restoration to file shall be disposed of in the light of the direction as aforesaid. It is further directed that such disposal of the appeal shall be achieved within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

¶26

8. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHYAlok Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 18-Nov-2025 08:04:00

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Basanti Pandab v. Subrat Pandab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanti Pandab v. Subrat Pandab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunder Mahanto Vs State

Hemnata@Nabin Meher Vs State of Odisha

Rama Chandra Parida Vs State of Odisha

S.Babula Dora Vs Sunita Dora

Birendra Kumar Behera Vs State of Odisha

Binayak Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha