The court reaffirmed that maintenance can be claimed even after separation, emphasizing the importance of financial assessment for determining needs and capabilities under domestic violence provisions.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Both the revisions are disposed of by the following common judgment since it involves the same parties.

2. CRLREV No.414 of 2016: Instant revision is filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife’) assailing the impugned decision of the learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2014 to the extent with regard to monthly maintenance and compensation payable to her by the opposite party (hence called as ‘the husband’) on the grounds inter alia that the same is inadequate and hence, liable to be interfered with and enhanced granting other reliefs, she is entitled to.

3. CRLREV No.211 of 2016: Present revision is at the behest of the husband assailing the decision in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2014 of the learned court below in a proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act’) and for having enhanced the maintenance to Rs.8000/- per month payable to the wife as against the order of the learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya-cum-J.M.F.C., Kolanara, Rayagada of Rs.6,000/- and also on account of compensation of Rs.3 lac awarded against him on the grounds stated therein.

4. In fact, the wife moved an application under Section 12 of the Act seeking monetary relief and demanding orders under Sections 19 and 22 of the Act from the husband registered as M.C. No.36 of 2013 and it was disposed of by the learned J.M.F.C. by order dated 30^th April, 2014 allowing monthly alimony of Rs.6,000/- payable to her on or before 10^th day of every month with effect from the date of such order and further payment of Rs.3 lac towards compensation within the stipulated period. Against the aforesaid order, both the parties filed appeals under Section 29 of the Act and the learned court below disposed of the same on 18^th February, 2016 dismissing Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2014 and allowing Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2014 preferred by the wife to the extent of enhancing monthly maintenance to Rs.8,000/- maintaining the order of compensation at Rs.3 lac. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 18^th February, 2016 in the appeals, the parties filed the revisions with respective reliefs.

5. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the wife and Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the husband.

6. According to the wife, she got married in 1975 with their son born in 1976 and soon thereafter, found her husband having extra-marital relationship, which was opposed but every effort from her side was in vain. It is pleaded on record that the husband instituted a suit in T.S. No.66 of 1986 in the Court of learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore for a divorce decree, but it was dismissed on 26^th November, 1991, against which, Civil Misc. Appeal No.3 of 1993 was filed and was dismissed on 30^th September, 2996 and ultimately, confirmed in S.A. No.337 of 1996 by this Court disposed of on 25^th August, 2008. According to the wife, she has not been looked after by her husband for long and neglected and their son was brought up like an orphan and that apart, the orders of the Courts to pay maintenance were never obeyed and at last, while working as a primary school teacher, retired from service in 2009. It is further pleaded that her husband retired as a Reader in Commerce from Bikramdev College, Jeypore in 2006. The pleading on record is that the learned J.M.F.C. allowed monthly alimony of Rs.6,000/- only though her husband was receiving Rs.57,000/- as monthly pension after 6^th Pay revision. It is claime