The court emphasized the necessity for financial disclosure in domestic violence cases to ensure fair maintenance assessments, mandating adherence to established principles from prior apex court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. Instant revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned judgment dated 14^th February, 2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2020 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, whereby, the decision of the learned J.M.F.C.(R), Cuttack dated 26^th February, 2020 in connection with Crl. Misc. Case No.93 of 2016 stood modified allowing Rs.4000/- each towards house rent and maintenance and a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) payable to her as compensation under Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.V. Act’) thereby enhancing the said amounts from Rs.2000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively on the grounds inter alia that the same is not to be legally tenable and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside with consequential orders.

2. As informed, petitioner No.3 has expired in the meantime and hence, the relief and direction sought for by the petitioner is now directed against opposite party Nos.2, 4 and 5 only.

3. According to the petitioner, the impugned judgment as at Annexure-1 is illegal, perverse and unjustified, hence, to be modified or quashed as deemed necessary. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned Appellate Court failed to consider the material evidence with a plea that the relief was confined to the quantum of maintenance on the basis of a concession of the learned counsel engaged by the petitioner. It is pleaded that the learned Appellate Court, instead of appreciating the unrebutted oral evidence of the witnesses overwhelming and conclusive in nature to prove the financial status of the opposite parties, ignored the same, hence, has led to allowing meagre amount of maintenance and on other heads and instead, it was swayed away considering the disability of opposite party No.2, namely, husband of the petitioner. It is further pleaded that there is no justifiable reason to not direct opposite party Nos.2 to 5 to return the cash of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand) with gold ornaments and other articles, which belong to the petitioner exclusively and therefore, the impugned decision in appeal is liable to be set aside with fresh directions issued.

4. Heard Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Panigrahi, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Dora, learned counsel for opposite party Nos.2, 4 & 5.

5. Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts described herein above and contended that the petitioner is substantially prejudiced in view of the impugned decision under Annexure-1, which has arrived following the order dated 15^th December, 2022 in CRLREV No.407 of 2022, by which, the matter was remanded back for a fresh decision by the learned Appellate Court, which while entertaining Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2020, dismissed the same as against the order of maintenance and other relief(s) allowed by the Court of 1^st instance. The contention of Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only the house rent and maintenance allowed under Sections 19 and 20 of the D.V. Act to be inadequate, learned Appellate Court was required to consider a reasonable sum for compensation instead fixed at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only. According to Mr. Routray, learned counsel, learned Appellate Court issued no direction with regard to return of cash, gold ornaments and other items against opposite party Nos.2 to 5 in spite of relief sought for in tha