Disposed¶25

Asif Iqbal@Iquibal Khan v. Hamida Begum

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack – CRLREV No.85 of 2023

Orissa HC16 Sept 2025CRLREV/85/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DV Act interim maintenance enhancement; Sections 12 and 23 DV Act; J.M.F.C. Tigiria; DV Case No.08 of 2019; Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2022; interim maintenance trajectory Rs.3,000/- to Rs.15,000/- to Rs.10,000/-; petitioner serving in Indian Army with claimed income over Rs.70,000/- p.m.; school-going daughter at Cambridge School, Cuttack; direction for disposal within three months; Orissa High Court CRLREV No.85 of 2023; R.K. Pattanaik, J.; order dated 16.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition disposed of: interim maintenance payment enhanced from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.10,000/- pending final decision; J.M.F.C., Tigiria directed to hear and dispose of DV Case No.08 of 2019 preferably within three months, on merits and uninfluenced by this Court's observations on quantum. ¶25

Asif Iqbal@Iquibal Khan Vs Hamida Begum — Domestic Violence | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment dated 23rd December, 2022 (Annexure-3), which enhanced the interim maintenance without assigning any reason, is liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The interim payment towards maintenance, which stood at Rs.7,500/- (50% of the Rs.15,000/- directed vide Annexure-3), is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, to be paid by the petitioner as an interim measure till the final decision is rendered by the learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria in the DV proceeding.

¶23

Key takeaways

The learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria is directed to immediately take up hearing in DV Case No.08 of 2019 and ensure its disposal as soon as possible, preferably within three months.ratio¶25
The learned court below shall receive evidence from both sides and decide the DV proceeding on merits, without being influenced by any observations made in this order, especially regarding the quantum of maintenance payable by the petitioner.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — CRLREV No.85 of 2023 — Asif Iqbal @ Iquibal Khan v. Hamida Begum — Order dated 16.09.2025 (R.K. Pattanaik, J.) — Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Ss. 12 & 23 — interim maintenance. Revision assailing the judgment dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure-3) in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2022, whereby interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- fixed by the J.M.F.C., Tigiria on 20.06.2022 (Annexure-2) was enhanced to Rs.15,000/-; grievance that enhancement was made without assigning reasons. Noting the petitioner's monthly income of Rs.44,899/- in 2022 (per Annexure-2), his claimed present income of around Rs.70,000/-, and the school-going daughter (Cambridge School, Cuttack), the Court disposed of the revision by enhancing the interim payment (earlier 50% of Rs.15,000/-, i.e. Rs.7,500/-) to Rs.10,000/- till final decision, and directed the J.M.F.C., Tigiria to take up DV Case No.08 of 2019 immediately and dispose of it preferably within three months on merits, uninfluenced by the observations on quantum.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLREV No.85 of 2023

¶3

Asif Iqbal @ Iquibal Khan …. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Hamida Begum

¶7

…. Opposite Party

¶8

Mr. S.K. Panda, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

16.09.2025

Order No.

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

¶16

Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment at Annexure-3 on the grounds stated.

¶17

The opposite party initiated a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) against the petitioner and therein, an application under Section 23 of the DV Act was moved seeking interim maintenance and considering the same, the order dated 20^th June, 2022 at Annexure-2 was passed by learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria. Being dissatisfied, the opposite party approached the learned court below in Criminal Appeal No.09 of 2022 seeking enhancement and it has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment i.e. Annexure-3 with a direction for the petitioner to make a payment of Rs.15,000/- to her.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

4 . Mr. Zafarulla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below has not assigned any reason while enhancing the interim maintenance, hence, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 23^rd December, 2022 at Annexure-3 is liable to be set aside. In response to the above, Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the petitioner is serving in Indian Army and has been receiving monthly income of more than Rs.70,000/- and therefore, the learned court below did not err or commit any illegality in enhancing the interim maintenance as it was originally for a sum of Rs.3,000/- only.

¶20

Recorded the submission of Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party, who justifies the impugned judgment at Annexure-3.

¶21

Gone through the application of the opposite party under Section 12 of the DV Act as at Annexure-1. The opposite party has claimed reliefs under the DV Act for maintenance, compensation etc. While dealing with the application under Section 23 of the DV Act, the Court of 1^st instance allowed interim maintenance for an amount of Rs.3,000/- in the whole and it has been enhanced to Rs.15,000/- by the learned court below. The Court finds that the parties are having a daughter and she is school going child and student of Cambridge School, Cuttack. From the interim order at Annexure-2, it is revealed that the petitioner had a monthly income of Rs.44,899/- by then in the year 2022. It is claimed that the monthly income of the petitioner at present is around Rs.70,000/-. In any view of the

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

matter, as this Court has directed payment of 50% of the interim maintenance vide Annexure-3 which stands at Rs.7,500/- it would be best served if the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- till such time, the final decision is rendered by the learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria in the DV proceeding after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and the fact that the opposite party having a daughter to be looked after. The Court is also the view that a direction is necessary for the court of 1^st instance to ensure disposal of the DV proceeding within stipulated period.

¶24

7. Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the revision petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. It is directed that the learned J.M.F.C., Tigiria shall immediately take up hearing in DV Case No.08 of 2019 and to ensure disposal of the same as soon as possible preferably within a period of three months. It is further directed that the petitioner shall continue making payment of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party as an interim measure. It is made clear that the learned court below shall receive evidence from both the sides and dispose of the DV proceeding on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove especially with regard to the quantum of maintenance payable by the petitioner.

¶26

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally SignedSigned by: THAKURDAS TUDU (R.K. Pattanaik) Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Judge Location: OHC,CTC Date: 18-Sep-2025 10:54:58

¶29

TUDU

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Asif Iqbal@Iquibal Khan v. Hamida Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asif Iqbal@Iquibal Khan v. Hamida Begum

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

Rudra Prasad Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Satyendra Kumar Vs Union of India

Anita Nayak Vs Krishna Kumari Jena

Sunita Behera Vs Collector, Ganjam

Mihira Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Tirtha Sahu Vs Mst.Sarojini Bhoi