The duty of a husband to maintain his wife and child is fundamental and remains irrespective of personal status, underscoring the need for timely interim relief under domestic violence legislation.

Judgment :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the Opposite party.

2. Instant revision petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the correctness of the impugned judgment dated 24.06.2024 under Annexure-1 passed in Criminal Appeal No.90 of 2023 by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, wherein by the orders of learned Lower Appellate Court, the order dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure-5) passed in CMC No.298/2019 granting maintenance and compensation, was set aside and the matter was remitted back on the premise that the Opposite Party-husband was set ex parte.

3. Assailing the same, it is submitted by the Petitioners that the learned Trial Court while disposing of CMC No.298 of 2019 allowed monthly maintenance and other financial relief in favour of the Petitioners but the appeal was entertained and disposed of for rehearing without awarding any interim alimony to the Petitioners, which is unjustified and not legally tenable, hence, this revision petition.

4. It is submitted by the Petitioners that the learned Appellate Court below has failed to appreciate that the Opp. Party - Husband chose not to participate in the proceeding before the learned Trial Court in spite of having entered appearance through his advocate and filing his show cause/objection. Since, the Opp. Party - Husband was set ex-parte on account of deliberate latches on his part, the learned Appellate Court, grossly erred in remanding the matter to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication.

5. And, it is submitted that without taking into account the provisions of the Act in its proper perspective, the learned Appellate Court has remanded the matter by the impugned order. Thus, there is perverse exercise of jurisdiction which merits indulgence of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

6. Referring to the impugned order at Annexure-1, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party that there is no error committed by the learned Lower Appellate Court in as much as the order impugned therein (order dated 31.10.2022 at Annexure-5) was passed ex-parte without giving an opportunity to him of being heard. And, further the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been strictly followed.

7. It is further contended that during 2019-2020 the Opposite Party has voluntarily paid a substantial amount of about Rs.6 lakhs to the Petitioners. Besides, in terms of the oral direction of the Appellate Court the Opposite Party-husband has already paid a sum of Rs.3.15 lakhs to the Petitioners, as such the learned Lower Appellate Court rightly not awarded any interim maintenance to the Petitioner.

8. It is admitted that the Petitioner No.l is the legally wedded wife of the Opp. Party-Husband and the Petitioner No.2 is their son. On account of marital discord and persistent physical and mental torture, the Petitioner No.l left the company of the Opp. Party since January, 2019 and has been residing at her parental house. Both the Petitioners are financially dependent on the old parents of the Petitioner No.1, for which the Petitioners filed complaint bearing CMC No.298 of 2019 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domest