Interim monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act continues post-divorce until the application is resolved, ensuring ongoing support for aggrieved parties and maintaining the authority of initial protective orders.

JUDGMENT :

CHITTARANJAN DASH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

2. By this application, the Petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the learned 1^st A.D.J.-Cum-A.S.J.(P), Rourkela in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2021, wherein the court declined to grant the interim monetary relief to the Petitioner subsequent to the period upon dissolution of the marriage of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party.

3. The background facts of the case, as borne out from the record, are that the Petitioner is the legally married wife of the Opposite Party, their marriage having been solemnised on 10.07.2011 at Rourkela. In July, 2012, the Petitioner returned to Rourkela where the Opposite Party was then employed as a Manager with M/s. Adhunik Metaliks and was also possessing ancestral property at village Karamdihi in the district of Sundargarh. The Petitioner joined St. Mary School as a teacher in September, 2013 and continued to reside with the Opposite Party. In March, 2017 she joined a coaching institute; however, such engagement was consistently objected to by the Opposite Party. It is alleged that on 23.12.2018, the Petitioner came to know that the Opposite Party was maintaining an illicit relationship with another woman and when she confronted him, he became furious and physically assaulted her. Thereafter, the Opposite Party allegedly continued to harass the Petitioner even at her workplace, leading to her dismissal from service. On 30.12.2018, the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home with his belongings and started residing at his native place at Karamdihi, from where he continued to harass the Petitioner over phone and otherwise, thereby causing her mental distress. Being aggrieved by the alleged acts of cruelty, the Petitioner instituted a proceeding for divorce, which came to be allowed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela by decree dated 16.10.2019 in C.P. No.69 of 2019 dissolving the marriage. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter ‘PWDV Act’) before the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh seeking monetary and other reliefs. She also filed an application under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act seeking ad-interim monetary relief. The learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, by order dated 16.02.2019, taking note of the averments in the application under Section 12 and the affidavit filed under Section 23(2), granted an ex parte interim order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.7,000/- per month towards ad-interim monetary relief till conclusion of the proceeding, payable within ten days of every succeeding month, and further restrained him from committing any domestic violence. According to the Petitioner, the Opposite Party did not comply with the aforesaid interim order. Consequently, she filed an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. on 14.12.2020, registered as Criminal Misc. Case No.407 of 2020, for enforcement of the interim order and realisation of arrears, which she stated to be Rs.1,54,000/- for 22 months as on November, 2020. In the said proceeding, the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh, by order dated 18.01.2021, issued notice to the Opposite Party and upon his non-appearance, issued distress warrant as well as conditional NBW for realisation of the arrear amount. The Opposite Party thereafter preferred Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2021 before the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela, which culminated in the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 modifying the enforcement order by restricting the Petitioner’s entitlement to interim maintenance only up to the date of decree of divorce, i.e., 16.10.2019. The Petitioner, challenging the legality of the said order, has approached this Court, asserting that the ex parte interim monetary relief granted on 16.02.2019 has never been assailed by the Opposite Party before the appellate forum.

4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner-Wife, submits that the impugned or