Disposed¶39

Sarbeswar Mishra v. Nirupama Rath

Orissa HC6 Mar 2026RPFAM/6/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance; withdrawal of petition as not pressed; memo of date; disposed of; stamp reporting afresh; Registrar (Judicial); delay of 392 days in filing; Family Court Jagatsinghpur; Crl.P. No.136 of 2023; Crl. Proceeding No.136 of 2023; RPFAM No.6 of 2026; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo; Sarbeswar Mishra v. Nirupama Rath; Rs.5000 per month maintenance; Rs.15,000 claimed; prima facie no interference.

What did the court decide?

Petition permitted to be withdrawn as not pressed; memo taken on record; copy of the order directed to be forwarded to the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur, to be kept in the records of Crl. Proceeding No.136 of 2023. ¶39

Sarbeswar Mishra Vs Nirupama Rath — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself? (Point for determination framed by the learned trial Court, as reproduced in this order.) +2 more

¶25

Ratio / Principle

In view of the petitioner's memo stating that he does not want to proceed with the present petition, the memo is taken on record and the application stands disposed of.

¶39

Key takeaways

As recorded in this Court's order of 19.01.2026 (reproduced in this order), prima facie no case was made out for interference with the order passed by the learned trial Court; the point was not finally decided as the petition was thereafter withdrawn as not pressed.obiter¶31
On the stamp-reporting objection, the matter was directed to be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) for Stamp Reporting to be done again, and the Registry was directed to do the needful for Stamp Reporting afresh (order of 19.01.2026).ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack — RPFAM No.6 of 2026, Sarbeswar Mishra v. Nirupama Rath (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, J.; order dated 06.03.2026). Petition by the husband challenging the judgment dated 29.08.2025 of the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur in Crl.P. No.136 of 023, whereby Rs.5000/- per month was awarded as maintenance to the wife from the date of application (claim having been Rs.15,000/-). The petition was filed after a reported delay of 392 days; an error in the Stamp Reporting was noted (date of valid presentation stated as 22.12.2025) and the matter was referred to the Registrar (Judicial) for Stamp Reporting afresh. On hearing on 19.01.2026, the Court observed that prima facie no case was made out for interference with the trial Court's order but adjourned the matter to the week commencing 2nd February, 2026. Thereafter, by memo of date, the petitioner stated he did not want to proceed and sought leave to withdraw the case as not pressed; the memo was taken on record and the application stood disposed of. Copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Family Court, Jagatsinghpur for the records of Crl. Proceeding No.136 of 2023. No statute or precedent is cited in the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

RPFAM No.6 of 2026

¶3

Sarbeswar Mishra

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. B.K. Swain, Advocate

-versus-

Nirupama Rath

Opp. Party

CORAM:

JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

06.03.2026

(Hybrid Mode)

Order No.

02. 1 . The matter was heard at length on 19.01.2026 and the following order was passed:

¶16

“Learned counsel for the Petitioner was heard at length. 2. The Petitioner-Husband in the marriage has approached this Court challenging the judgment dated 29.08.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur in Crl.P. No.136 of 023.

¶17

3. The appeal has been filed after a reported delay of 392 days.

¶18

It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that apparently there is error in the Stamp Reporting. The date of judgment is 29.08.2025 and the date of valid presentation being 22.12.2025.

¶19

4. Accordingly, the matter be placed before the Registrar (Judicial) for referring the matter for Stamp Reporting to be done again.

¶20

5. Regarding merits of the case, it is admitted by the Petitioner in the present petition that though he appeared before the learned trial Court but did not further participate in the proceeding.

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

6. The learned trial Court has considered the materials on record in detail as would be evident from the relevant Paragraphs, i.e., Paragraphs-3,4,6,9,11 & 12, which are reproduced herein:

¶23

“3. In the instance case, the opposite party had entered his appearance through his Advocate. But subsequently, he did not file his show cause Accordingly he was precluded to file show cause vide order dtd. 9.4.2024. Thereafter he did not present at the time hearing.

¶24

4. In course of hearing, from the side of the petitioner, two witnesses are examined including the petitioner as P.W.1 and her father as P.W.2 and stated substantially corroborating the averments made in the petition. Neither the opposite party remained presented to cross-examine the petitioner nor he adduced any evidence from his side in course of hearing of the case. 6. In the instant case, as it reveals from the pleadings of the parties, it is not disputed that the marriage between the petitioner and the opposite party was solemnized on 8.7.2018 following Hindu rites and custom. Therefore, this Court found that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the opposite party. The remaining points for determination in the instant case are as following:

¶25

I) Whether the petitioner is unable to maintain herself?

¶26

II) Whether opposite party having sufficient means is neglecting or refusing to maintain the petitioner without any lawful excuse or reason ?

¶27

9. In the instance, the oral evidence of the petitioner is that the opposite party is serving as a Security Guard at Maritime Museum at Jobra, Cuttack and getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. Besides the above the opposite party has sufficient landed property of more than Ac.5.00 acres at his native place Badamba from which the opposite party is earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The opposite party is also earning a sum of Rs.10,000/per month from the house rent. Though the petitioner filed her affidavit containing her assets and liability wherein she has mentioned about same thing, but she has not submitted any document to

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

establish the alleged income of the opposite party. However, since in the instant case, it is not disputed that the opposite party is a healthy and able bodied man and he is also working as a Security Guard, this court held that the opposite party has sufficient means to maintain the petitioner.

¶30

11. So far as the refusal on the part of the opposite party to pay maintenance is concerned, the opposite party has not filed his show cause not adduced any evidence from his side regarding the misconduct and misbehaviour of the petitioner during her stay in his house. Therefore, the opposite party made his intention clear to not stay further with the petitioner and hence, question of refusal on the part of the petitioner to stay with the opposite party without any sufficient reason, does not arise in the instant case. It is also not the case of either party that they are living separately on mutual consent or that the petitioner is living in adultery. Therefore, this court found no reasonable ground for refusing to pay maintenance to the petitioner by the opposite party. 12. So far as the quantum of maintenance is concerned, though the petitioner has claimed to the tune of Rs.15,000/towards her monthly maintenance, this court found that the petitioner ha failed to establish the exact income of the opposite party. This court only found that the opposite party is working as a security guard in Maritime Museum, Jobra, Cuttack and he is a healthy and able bodied man. The petitioner being the legally married wife of the opposite party has every right to maintain herself with minimum dignity availing necessary comfort. In the present days, considering the hike in the prices of the essential commodity, it is not possible unless a minimum amount has been paid to the petitioner for her survival by the opposite party.”

¶31

7. The learned trial Court after considering the merits instead of the claimed amount of Rs.15,000/- has awarded Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance from the date of application. Prima facie no case is made out for

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

interference with the order passed by the learned trial Court.

¶34

8. However, persuaded by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the matter is adjourned to be listed in the week commencing 2nd February, 2026.

¶35

9. Registry shall do the needful for Stamp Reporting afresh.”

¶36

2. Today, when the matter is taken up, memo of date is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which states thus:

¶37

“The petitioner does not want to proceed with the present petition. Hence, the petitioner may kindly be permitted to withdrawn the case as not press. ( sic )”

¶38

Memo shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be updated.

¶39

3. The application stands disposed of.

¶40

Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the Court of learned Judge, Family Court, Jagatsinghpur to be kept in the records of Crl. Proceeding No.136 of 2023.

¶41

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶42

Judge

¶43

Radha

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: RADHARANI JENA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 14-Mar-2026 15:57:14

¶46

Page 4 of 4