Satyakam Das Vs Sunita Sahoo

By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.R.P. No.143 of 2023.

¶22

The background facts of the case are that the Petitioner is the husband of Opposite Party No.1-Sunita Sahoo. Their marriage was solemnised on 03.05.2009, and a daughter, Opposite Party No.2Ananya Das, was born on 03.08.2012. Due to matrimonial discord,

¶23

the relationship between the parties deteriorated, leading Opposite Party No.1 to institute a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the learned J.M.F.C., Bhubaneswar in C.M.C. No.579 of 2023. In the said proceeding, the learned Magistrate, while disposing of the application under Section 23 of the Act, directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.1 and her mother towards interim maintenance.

¶24

Another application was also filed on behalf of Opposite Party No.2-Ananya Das, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar seeking maintenance, which was registered as C.R.P. No.143 of 2023. The learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, by order dated 04.07.2024, granted interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month in favour of Opposite Party No.2, payable by the Petitioner.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the order passed under the PWDV Act, the Petitioner moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Khurda in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2024. In the said appeal, the Petitioner also brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge the direction issued by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar, requiring him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2-Daughter. The learned Sessions Judge, while appreciating the orders passed by the respective courts and assessing the income of the Petitioner-Husband, modified the interim maintenance awarded under the P.W.D.V. Act by directing payment of Rs.12,000/- per month in place of Rs.15,000/- as earlier

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

ordered by the learned J.M.F.C. The learned Sessions Judge also affirmed the direction of the learned Judge, Family Court, requiring payment of Rs.6,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2-Daughter. Thus, the Petitioner was directed to pay a total sum of Rs.18,000/per month towards interim maintenance.

¶28

Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted, inter alia, that the impugned order itself demonstrates that the learned court has elaborately set out the Petitioner’s income and various components of his expenditure. However, despite such findings, the court has directed the Petitioner to pay an unrealistic total amount of Rs.18,000/- per month comprising Rs.12,000/- as modified by the learned Sessions Judge in place of Rs.15,000/awarded by the learned J.M.F.C. under Section 23 of the P.W.D.V. Act, and Rs.6,000/- as directed by the learned Judge, Family Court towards interim maintenance for Opposite Party No.2.

¶29

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner. He submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court directing the Petitioner to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 is justified, particularly considering that the daughter is about 13 years of age, is pursuing her studies, and it is the legal and moral obligation of the Petitioner, as her father, to ensure her education and meet her necessary expenses. He further contended that the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing payment of Rs.12,000/- per month under the P.W.D.V. Act, in place of Rs.15,000/- as earlier directed by the learned J.M.F.C., is also

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

proper, having regard to the fact that the Petitioner has sufficient income from his salary as well as business.

¶32

On perusal of the impugned orders passed by both courts, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge was conscious of the fact that the income of the husband, as claimed by the Opposite Parties including his salary and alleged business income are matters requiring evidence and can only be conclusively established during trial. It is further evident from the impugned order that although the learned court observed that the Petitioner’s income would be proved in the course of trial, it prima facie assessed his salary to be Rs.27,000/- along with D.A., aggregating to approximately Rs.36,000/-. In such circumstances, directing payment of Rs.12,000/- per month towards interim maintenance appears to be on the higher side.

¶33

While this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the quantum of interim maintenance assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month appears to be on the higher side. Accordingly, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month towards interim maintenance under the P.W.D.V. Act. Similarly, the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court awarding interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2Daughter being justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, warrants no interference at this stage. The Petitioner shall therefore pay a total sum of Rs.14,000/- per month i.e. Rs.8,000/- + Rs.6,000/- towards interim maintenance to Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 respectively.

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

With regard to the arrears of interim maintenance, it was submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, that it would not be feasible for the Petitioner to clear the entire arrears in one lump sum and that he may be permitted to discharge the same in twelve equal monthly instalments. The learned counsel for the Opposite Parties opposed such prayer. Considering the submissions of both the parties and the overall circumstances, it is directed that the Petitioner shall clear the arrear dues towards interim maintenance in eight (8) equal monthly installments. It is further made clear that the Petitioner shall continue to pay the current monthly maintenance by the 5^th day of every succeeding month.

¶36

In view of the above, both CRLMP and CRLREV stand disposed of.

¶37

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶38

KC Bisoi

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: KRUSHNA CHANDRA BISOI Reason: Authentication Location: orissa high court Date: 03-Dec-2025 15:19:21

¶41

Page 5 of 5

Satyakam Das v. Sunita Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyakam Das v. Sunita Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somnath Datta Vs State of Odisha

Rudranarayan Pati Vs State of Odisha

Laxman Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha

Srikant Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Gopal Krishna Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Satyakam Das Vs Ananya Das