Disposed¶24

Rudra Prasad Sahoo v. Sanjukta Sahoo

Orissa HC17 Feb 2026CRLREV/309/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; CRLREV No. 309 of 2024; Justice V. Narasingh; 17.02.2026; Rudra Prasad Sahoo v. Sanjukta Sahoo; criminal revision against enhancement of interim compensation under DV proceeding (DV CMC No.01 of 2023) via Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024 under OPID Act designation; interim maintenance reduced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.22,000/-, fixed at 25% of basic salary Rs.87,200/- (taken as Rs.88,000/-); Appellate Court's Rs.1,50,000/- salary estimate called guesswork; revisional jurisdiction; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance modified from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.22,000/-, fixed at 25% of the Petitioner's basic salary of Rs.87,200/- (taken as Rs.88,000/- for calculation); pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶24

Rudra Prasad Sahoo Vs Sanjukta Sahoo — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim maintenance modified from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.22,000/-, fixed at 25% of the Petitioner's basic salary of Rs.87,200/- (taken as Rs.88,000/- for calculation); pending I.A., if any, disposed of.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim compensation enhanced to Rs.30,000/- by the learned Appellate Court is excessive (ex-facie perverse and arbitrary), not taking into account the Petitioner's capacity to pay and his other societal responsibilities. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

This Court held that the interest of justice would be subserved if the directed amount is modified to 25% of the Petitioner's basic salary of Rs.87,200/-, taken as Rs.88,000/- for the purpose of calculation.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The interim maintenance is modified from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.22,000/-.

¶23

Key takeaways

The learned Appellate Court's finding that the Petitioner must be getting around Rs.1,50,000/- as salary was a guesswork.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court at Cuttack (Justice V. Narasingh), CRLREV No. 309 of 2024, order dated 17.02.2026: Rudra Prasad Sahoo (Petitioner) v. Sanjukta Sahoo (Opposite Party). Assailing the judgment dated 06.05.2024 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Designated under OPID Act, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024, which enhanced the interim compensation awarded on 29.11.2023 by the learned J.M.F.C.-IV (Cog. Taking), Cuttack in DV CMC No.01 of 2023 from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, the Petitioner contended the enhancement was ex-facie perverse and arbitrary, ignoring his capacity to pay and his societal responsibilities (dependent mother; father recently deceased after prolonged illness). The Appellate Court had relied on the Petitioner's own affidavit of assets and liabilities showing basic salary of Rs.87,200/- excluding allowances, yet made a guesswork that his salary must be around Rs.1,50,000/-. Considering the rival submissions, this Court held the interest of justice would be subserved by fixing interim maintenance at 25% of the basic salary of Rs.87,200/- (taken as Rs.88,000/- for calculation), thereby modifying it from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.22,000/-. The CRLREV stands disposed of; pending I.A., if any, disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 309 of 2024

¶2

Rudra Prasad Sahoo

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Sanjukta Sahoo …. Opposite Party Mr. T. Sinha, Advocate

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

17.02.2026

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

¶12

¶13

Assailing the judgment dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cumPresiding Officer, Designated under OPID Act, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024 enhancing the interim compensation awarded by the learned J.M.F.C.-IV (Cog. Taking) Cuttack vide order dated 29.11.2023 in DV CMC No.01 of 2023 from Rs.7,000/- to 30,000/-, the present criminal revision has been filed.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the enhancement of interim compensation is ex-facie perverse and arbitrary, not taking into account the capacity of the Petitioner to

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

pay and it is further submitted that since the proceeding is lingering and the Petitioner’s engagement is project based, such direction is causing hardship.

¶17

Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-wife submits that, on analysis of the materials on record in a cogent manner, taking into account the documents upon which the Petitioner himself relied and the affidavit filed relating to assets and liabilities and that he was getting a basic salary of Rs.87,200/apart from allowances, the learned Appellate Court came to a finding that the salary of the present Petitioner won’t be less than Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶18

It is submitted that such approach cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶19

On perusal of the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court, it is seen that the learned Appellate Court has referred, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party that “………….OP himself mentioned in his affidavit assets and liabilities statement that he is getting Rs.87,200/- basic salary excluding allowances…………”

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

And, the learned Appellate Court made a guesswork that the present Petitioner must be getting around of Rs.1,50,000/- as his salary.

¶22

It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has other societal responsibilities in as much as his mother is dependent on his income, his father unfortunately having passed away recently after prolonged illness and for treatment of his father substantial amount has to be spent. Hence, the amount directed to be paid as interim compensation is ex-facie exorbitant.

¶23

Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be subserved if the amount as directed is modified to be 25% of the basic salary of Rs.87,200/, which, for the purpose of calculation, is taken to be Rs.88,000/-, and accordingly, the interim maintenance is modified from Rs.30,000/to Rs.22,000/-.

¶24

Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of. 11. In view of the disposal of the CRLREV, pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 19-Feb-2026 12:17:19 Santoshi

¶27

(V. Narasingh) Judge

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Rudra Prasad Sahoo v. Sanjukta Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rudra Prasad Sahoo v. Sanjukta 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

Puspanjali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Priyanka Singh Vs State of Odisha

Sunita Kanhar Vs State of Odisha

Dabula @ Debendra Vs State

Nakula Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Balaram Sahoo Vs Purna Ch.Sahoo