RPFAM/180/2024 of SUBASHIS BHOI Vs SUJATA SINGH on 14 May 2026

J U D G M E N T

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing: 12.05.2026 & 14.05.2026 Date of Judgment: 14.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The matter was presented before this Court on 26.06.2024.

The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before this Court seeking revision of the judgment dated 03.06.2024

passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Angul in CRP No.142 of 2019.

2. The said CRP No.142 of 2019 was initiated by the wife in the marriage under section 125 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by the parimateria provision section 144 of BNSS, 2023) seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only).

The CRP was favoured, however, granting monthly maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- (rupees four thousand only) per month from 11.12.2015 till 31.12.2022 and Rs.7,000/- (rupees seven thousand only) per month from 01.01.2023. The arrear maintenance was directed to be paid from 11.12.2015 upto May, 2024 in four equal consecutive monthly instalments, starting from June, 2024 onwards.

3. After hearing at length the learned counsel for the petitioner and the brief reply of learned counsel for the Opp. Party on 12.05.2026, this Court had passed order, relevant portion of the order is quoted herein: “ xxx

xxx

xxx

5. Seeking revision of the judgment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judge, Family Court has not examined the evidence on record in its proper perspective and has arrived at a wrong conclusion.

On being asked, it is submitted by the learned counsel upon instruction that the petitioner remains in default in paying the amount directed. The defaulted amount comes to about Rs.4,55,000/- (rupees four lakhs fifty five thousand).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the judgment, particularly, the exhibit marked as Ext.A described by the petitioner as purported ‘declaration document’ of the petitioner showing that she left the house of OP voluntarily produced by the petitioner herein who is the Opp. Party and submits that the impact of the exhibit has not been properly appreciated by the learned Family Court.

Upon perusal of the judgment impugned, it is apparent that regarding the said Ext.A, learned Judge, Family Court has discussed in detail as well as regarding Ext.B (the copy of the ‘agreement of the parties’ supplied by the Inspector-in- Charge, Jujumura PS). The discussions and findings of the learned Judge, Family Court is at paragraphs 20 and 25, which are reproduced herein: “20. Both P.W.1 & 2 have deposed in their evidence that on 21st day of the marriage the petitioner was talking to a friend in presence of her mother in law and on return of the O.P., her mother in law whispered something to him who started suspecting her character. The O.P. rebuked her saying that she is in love with another boy of her parental locality and trying to keep relationship with him even after her marriage. When the petitioner protested him alleging that the allegations are false, he slapped and kicked her in present of her in laws. Nothing substantial has been brought out from the mouth of the said witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. The evidence on record also shows that after that incident the petitioner went to her parental house and again the O.P. along with his relatives had gone to the parental house of the petitioner where a meeting was convened. Thereafter again the petitioner went to her matrimonial house but due to further disturbance her father came and took the petitioner by executing Ext.B. Ext.B shows that on dtd.04.06.2015 both the parties have amicably decided that after fifteen days both the parties will come to police station on dtd.20.06.2015 along with their caste people and they will settle the matter and till that day the petitioner will stay with her father. The said document was executed on dtd.04.06.2015 and the O.P. and father of the petitioner along with others signed on the document which has been entered vide SDE No.68 dtd.04.06.2015 and SDE No.359 dtd.18.06.2015. So far as the document under Ext.A is concerned, the contents of the said document shows that the petitioner left her in laws house as per her own will and not willing to maintain marital relationship with the O.P. The execution of the said document is disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is the onus of the O.P. to prove the contents of the said document as per law. Marking of the document as exhibit will no way exempt the O.P. to prove its contents U/s.67 of Indian Evidence Act and its execution. Allegations of assault and torture on the petitioner is there. The stamp vendor who had sold the stamp paper, on which Ext.A has been scribed is not examined. Very strangely it is found that the signature of the petitioner in the reverse side of Ext.A has been mentioned as “Sujata Bhoj”. The letter “o” has been overwritten. It is also not understood when all the parties were present in P.S. on dtd.04.06.2015 and executed the documents, under what circumstances Ext.A was prepared on dtd.05.06.2015 when the parties were not available there at P.S. on dtd.05.06.2015

and left the P.S. after execution of the documents. Where the document under Ext.A was prepared is neither pleaded nor proved. In whose presence the said document was prepared is not disclosed. Under what circumstances Ext.A was executed by the petitioner is not clear. No other person has signed on Ext.A except the petitioner. Therefore reasonable doubt arises about the lawful execution and genuineness of Ext.A. It can’t be safely accepted that the O.P. has proved by adducing legal evidence that the petitioner has executed Ext.A as per her free will and consent. Therefore the contention raised on behalf of the O.P. that the petitioner left his house as per her own will can’t be accepted to deprive her to get her legitimate right enforced against the O.P. to get maintenance from him being his legally wedded wife. The evidence on record also clearly establishes that due to the dispute regarding allegation of the O.P. that the petitioner was in love with another boy of her locality, there was matrimonial dispute between the parties and for that reason the petitioner is staying separately from the O.P. No reliable evidence is there on case record to believe that the petitioner was in love relationship with any other person of her locality. The evidence of the O.P. is not corroborated by any other witness. The family members of the O.P. are also not examined to support the evidence of the O.P. Therefore it is to be held that the petitioner is living separately from the O.P. for sufficient reason.

25. It has been contended by the O.P. that the petitioner left the house of the O.P. as per her own will and as such she is not entitled to get maintenance. The O.P. has also took the plea that the petitioner has filed false case against him and executed Ext.A that she is leaving the matrimonial house as per her own will. In support of the contention of the O.P. the learned counsel for the O.P. relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Court reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3174 decided in the case of Dev Narayan Halder … appellant vrs. Smt. Anushree Halder … respondent. I have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Court. With due respect to the decision of the Hon'ble Court, it is found that the facts dealt by the Hon'ble Court in the said case are totally different in comparison to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The O.P. has failed to prove by adducing legal evidence that the petitioner left the house of the O.P. as per her own will and without any reason. Therefore the contentions raised on behalf of the O.P. which are mentioned in para-11 of the judgment can’t be accepted. Further the decision relied upon by the learned counsel that the O.P. is found not squarely applicable to present facts and circumstances of this case.”

7. Regarding the income of the petitioner, the learned Judge, Family Court has gone into the details of the evidence and discussions and findings at paragraph 21. The learned Judge, Family Court has relied on the law laid down in the following decisions of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court: Jagat Krishna Das and another –vrs- Ajit Kumar Das and other reported in AIR 1964 Orissa 75; Bandita Mishra Vrs. Ramakrishna reported in 2019(1) OLR 184;

Shamima Farroqui –vrs- Saheed Khan reported in AIR 2015 SCC 2025; Kulabhusan Kumar Vrs. Raj Kumari & another reported in (1970) 3 SCC 129; Rajnesh –Vrs- Neha reported in AIR 2021 SC 569: (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Dev Narayan Halder vrs. Smt. Anushree Halder reported in AIR 2023 Supreme Court 3174.

xxx

xxx

xxx

9. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto @ Dinesh Kumar Mahato: 2025 INSC 55: AIR 2025 SC 644: (2025) 3 SCC 33.

The decision in Rina Kumari (supra) does not come to aid of the petitioner inasmuch as it has been held that in case of grant of decree of restitution of conjugal rights in an application filed by the husband, even if the wife is not complying the said decree, still she is entitled to receive maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. and provision contained in section 125(4) Cr.P.C. would not be a disqualification for receiving maintenance.

10. In considered view of this Court, the petition is devoid of any merit as has been discussed above. In view of the law laid down in Shamima Farooqui (supra), it cannot be interfered with by exercising revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and has adjournment to obtain instruction as to whether the petitioner will deposit the amount due as indicated at paragraph-5 above before the learned executing Court for sustaining the challenge.

12. To grand further opportunity to the petitioner, the matter shall be listed marked as ‘To be mentioned’ on 14.05.2026.”

4. As directed, today the matter is listed marked as ‘To be mentioned’ and is taken up; memo of date of filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which states thus: “The petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the above mentioned I.A. and file better application after vacation. As the petitioner (wife) in court below has deposed in her evidence before the trial court about Ext ‘A’ the declaration to live separately. The petitioner has to file the certified copy of her evidence.” (sic)

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

The memo seems to be an after thought, after the matter was heard extensively on 12.05.2026, the facts and the legal propositions were noted as quoted above and the learned counsel for the petitioner adjourned the matter after this Court had expressed it’s opinion.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the learned Family Court is erroneous as the learned court has not appreciated evidence in its proper perspective. Learned counsel has been apprised of the law laid down in Shamima Farooqui1 and that it is required to be shown from the written statement filed by the petitioner and evidence laid before learned trial court in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble apex Court in Shamima Farooqui to support the contentions raised.

1 Shamima Farooqui v. Sahid Khan: (2015) 5 SCC 705: AIR 2015 SC 2025

6. Regarding the liability of the husband to pay the maintenance, at paragraphs 16, 17, 18 of Shamima Farooqui the apex Court have extensively dealt with the issue. The law laid down is applied by this Court to the present adjudication and the paragraphs (from SCC Online Print) are reproduced herein :

16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], it has been ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6) “6. … Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70: 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787] .”

17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High

Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus : (SCC OnLine Del para 7)

7. … an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him.” [Underlined to supply emphasis]

7. Regarding the plea of the petitioner-herein, before the learned trial court that he is unable/in capable to pay, the discussions and the observations made by the apex Court in Shamima Farooqui (supra) at paragraphs-15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are apposite and are reproduced herein: “15. While determining the quantum of maintenance, this Court in Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] has held as follows : (SCC p. 12, para 8) “8. … The court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.”

16. Grant of maintenance to wife has been perceived as a measure of social justice by this Court. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] , it has been ruled that : (SCC p. 320, para 6) “6. … Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]”

17. This being the position in law, it is the obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. He cannot be permitted to plead that he is unable to maintain the wife due to financial constraints as long as he is capable of earning.

18. In this context, we may profitably quote a passage from the judgment rendered by the High Court of Delhi in Chander Parkash Bodh Raj v. Shila Rani Chander Prakash [1968 SCC

OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] wherein it has been opined thus : (SCC OnLine Del para 7)

7. … an able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife and child and he cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to be able to maintain them according to the family standard. It is for such able-bodied person to show to the Court cogent grounds for holding that he is unable, for reasons beyond his control, to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and child. When the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income, the presumption will be easily permissible against him.

19. From the aforesaid enunciation of law it is limpid that the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal when the question of maintenance of wife and children arises. When the woman leaves the matrimonial home, the situation is quite different. She is deprived of many a comfort. Sometimes her faith in life reduces. Sometimes, she feels she has lost the tenderest friend. There may be a feeling that her fearless courage has brought her the misfortune. At this stage, the only comfort that the law can impose is that the husband is bound to give monetary comfort. That is the only soothing legal balm, for she cannot be allowed to resign to destiny. Therefore, the lawful imposition for grant of maintenance allowance.”

8. Nature and scope of Section 125 CrPC (since repealed and substituted by pari materia provision contained in Section 144 of the BNSS, 2023), the legislative policy behind the enactment and the constitutional philosophy that has guided such enactment have been elaborately discussed in

the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v Neha2.

The paragraphs from Rajnesh (supra) relied upon and applied by this Court for deciding the present revision application are reproduced herein (from SCC Online web edition print): “(d) Section 125 CrPC

32. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC may be claimed by a person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong. The purpose and object of Section 125 CrPC is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 CrPC is predicated on two conditions : (i) the husband has sufficient means; and (ii) “neglects” to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors.

33. The remedy provided by Section 125 is summary in nature, and the substantive disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage can be determined by a civil court/Family Court in an appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

34. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi [Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi, (1975) 2 SCC 386 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 563] the Supreme Court held that under Section 125(1) CrPC only a wife who is “unable to maintain herself” is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held : (SCC p. 392, para 19)

2 ( 2021 ) 2 SCC 324

“19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments.” (emphasis supplied) xxx xxx xxx xxx

37. In Chaturbhuj v.Sita Bai [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316: (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.

38. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr PC are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena[Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. xxx xxx xxx

III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance

77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.

78. The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non- working wife.

79. In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.

80. On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational qualifications.

81. A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort. xxx xxx xxx xxx

84. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde [Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622 : (2007) 140 DLT 16] laid down the following factors to be considered for determining maintenance : (SCC OnLine Del para 8) “1. Status of the parties.

2. Reasonable wants of the claimant.

3. The independent income and property of the claimant.

4. The number of persons, the non-applicant has to maintain.

5. The amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar lifestyle as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home.

6. Non-applicant's liabilities, if any.

7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant.

8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant.

9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed.

10. The non-applicant to defray the cost of litigation.

11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.” xxx

xxx

xxx

Discussion and Directions

109. The judgments hereinabove reveal the divergent views of different High Courts on the date from which maintenance must be awarded. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the court to grant maintenance either from the date of application or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) CrPC, it would be appropriate to grant maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including Section 125 CrPC. In the practical working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is awarded from the date of the application. xxx

xxx

xxx V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance

114. Enforcement of the order of maintenance is the most challenging issue, which is encountered by the applicants. If maintenance is not paid in a timely manner, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation. Execution petitions usually remain pending for months, if not years, which completely nullifies the object of the law. The Bombay High Court in Sushila Viresh Chhadva v. Viresh Nagshi Chhadva held that : (SCC OnLine Bom para 7) “7. … The direction of interim alimony and expenses of litigation under Section 24 is one of urgency and it must be decided as soon as it is raised and … the law takes care that nobody is disabled from prosecuting or defending the matrimonial case by starvation or lack of funds.” xxx xxx xxx

xxx

117. Section 125(3) CrPC provides that if the party against whom the order of maintenance is passed fails to comply with the order of maintenance, the same shall be recovered in the manner as provided for fines, and the Magistrate may award sentence of imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or until payment, whichever is earlier.

xxx xxx xxx

VI. Final Directions

127. In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B — I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. xxx

xxx

xxx

(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded

131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in part B-IV above.”

9. In Shamima Farooqui (supra) (at paragraph 20 of SCC Print), the scope of interference in revision has been delineated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are reproduced herein: “20. In the instant case, as is seen, the High Court has reduced the amount of maintenance from Rs. 4000 to Rs. 2000. As is manifest, the High Court has become oblivious of the fact that she has to stay on her own. Needless to say, the order of the learned Family Judge is not manifestly perverse. There is nothing perceptible which would show that order is a sanctuary of errors. In fact, when the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record, no Revisional Court should have interfered with the reason on the base that it would have arrived at a different or another conclusion. When substantial justice has been done, there was no reason to interfere. There may be a shelter over her head in the parental house, but other real expenses cannot be ignored. Solely because the husband had retired, there was no justification to reduce the maintenance by 50%. It is not a huge fortune that was showered on the wife that it deserved reduction. It only reflects the non- application of mind and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order.”

10. Having perused the judgment of the learned Family Court and considering the discussions in the judgment regarding examination in chief of P.W.1, P.W.2, the discussions made on the pleadings of the parties and the discussions made by learned Court regarding relevancy, admissibility and weight of exhibits ‘A” and ‘B’, by applying the tests laid down in Shamima Farooqui (supra) it has to be and is held that there is nothing perceptible which would show that the judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court is a sanctuary of errors. Further it has to be and is held that the order is based on proper appreciation of evidence on record.

11. As observed by the Hon’ble apex Court, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with, as because, this Court would arrive at a different or another conclusion.

It cannot be held that the monthly maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month from 11.12.2015 till 31.12.2022 and Rs.7,000/- per month from 01.01.2023 is a fortune showered on the wife in the marriage that would require interference by this Court. In Shamima Farooqui (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court commenting on reduction of amount of maintenance from Rs.4,000/ to Rs.2,000/- by order of the High Court observed “it only reflects the non- application of mind and, therefore, we are unable to sustain the said order…”

It has to be held that substantial justice has been done by the learned Judge, Family Court while deciding the amount of maintenance directed to be paid to the wife in the marriage.

12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Opp. Party that execution case No.01 of 2025 arising out of CRP No.142 of 2019 filed by the Opp. Party-wife is pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Angul without progress due to pendency of the present application before this Court.

The learned counsel for the parties are apprised of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, authoritatively dealing with the legal issues involving execution cases; i.e. Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others: (2021) 6 SCC 418 and Periyammal (Dead) through L.Rs. and others vs. V. Rajamani and another: (2025) 9 SCC 568.

13. In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision by the large Bench Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi: (2021) 6 SCC 418 the execution proceedings are to be completed expeditiously. Paragraph 42 (from SCC Print) of the judgment of Rahul S. Shah are reproduced herein: “42. All courts dealing with suits and execution proceedings shall mandatorily follow the below mentioned directions: xxx xxx xxx

42.6. In a money suit, the court must invariably resort to Order 21 Rule 11, ensuring immediate execution of decree for payment of money on oral application.

42.7. In a suit for payment of money, before settlement of issues, the defendant may be required to disclose his assets on oath, to the extent that he is being made liable in a suit. The court may further, at any stage, in appropriate cases during the pendency of suit, using powers under Section 151 CPC, demand security to ensure satisfaction of any decree.

42.8. The court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 CPC, must not issue notice on an application of third party claiming rights in a mechanical manner. Further, the court should refrain from entertaining any such application(s) that has already been considered by the court while adjudicating the suit or which raises any such issue which otherwise could have been raised and determined during adjudication of suit if due diligence was exercised by the applicant. xxx xxx xxx

42.10. The court must in appropriate cases where it finds the objection or resistance or claim to be frivolous or mala fide, resort to sub-rule (2) of Rule 98 of Order 21 as well as grant compensatory costs in accordance with Section 35-A.

42.11. Under Section 60 CPC the term “… in name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf” should be read liberally to incorporate any other person from whom he may have the ability to derive share, profit or property.

42.12. The executing court must dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

42.13. The executing court may on satisfaction of the fact that it is not possible to execute the decree without police assistance, direct the police station concerned to provide police assistance to such officials who are working towards execution of the decree. Further, in case an offence against the public servant while discharging his duties is brought to the knowledge of the court, the same must be dealt with stringently in accordance with law.”

14. The petitioner should have secured the amount directed to be paid before this Court which he has chosen not to and the matter is kept pending since June, 2024. Apparently the Execution case No.1 of 2025 arising out of CRP No.142 of 2019 is kept pending due to filing and pendency of this petition though without securing the awarded amount. The learned executing court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law in the pending execution case.

15. In view of the above discussions, the application seeking revision of judgment dated 03.06.2026 rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Angul in CRP No.142 of 2019, being devoid of merit fails and is dismissed.

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 14th May, 2026/Rajesh

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 22-May-2026 19:29:41 Signature Not Verified