Maintenance must be just and reasonable, balancing the financial status of the husband and standard of living accustomed to by the wife, while concurrent factual findings should only be disturbed if perverse.

JUDGMENT :

R.K.PATTANAIK, J.

1. Both the revisions have been clubbed together and are disposed of by the following common judgment.

2. Instant revisions under Section 397 read with Section 401, Cr.P.C. are at the behest of the petitioner challenging the impugned judgment dated 19^th October, 2022 passed in connection with Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of 2019 (Trial No.375 of 2022) and the decisions in Criminal Appeal Nos.40 & 42 of 2022 dated 3^rd September, 2024 and 13^th September, 2024 respectively of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela on the grounds stated.

3. CRLREV No.73 of 2025: The petitioner questioned the correctness of the impugned judgment in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2022 against the decision in Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of 2019, whereby, monthly maintenance payable to opposite party No.1 has been enhanced to Rs.13,000/- along with Rs.7,000/- towards alternative accommodation besides compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from Rs.25,000/- on the grounds inter alia that the learned court below ought not to have modified the order of the learned JMFC (Rural), Rourkela in the DV proceeding wherein maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month with Rs.5,000/- on alternative accommodation and payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/- was directed and therefore, such enhancement is liable to be interfered with and set aside.

4. CRLREV No.78 of 2025: Against the order in Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of 2019, the petitioner challenged it in appeal but it was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3^rd September, 2024 for non-prosecution and such dismissal is assailed in the present revision on the ground that no intimation was received regarding the status of the proceeding before the learned JMFC (R), Rourkela from the Counsel engaged by him and as a result, it was followed by the order of dismissal when the cost imposed by order dated 6^th August, 2024 was not complied with on the date fixed, i.e. 8^th September, 2024 and finally on 6^th August, 2024 when further adjournment was sought for on medical ground supported by documents.

5. The order of maintenance and other reliefs granted in favour of opposite party No.1 in Crl. Misc. Case No.339 of 2019 was the subject matter of challenge at the behest of the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2022, whereas, it was sought to be enhanced by opposite party No.1, hence, the other appeal. So, the petitioner questioned the decision of the learned JMFC(R), Rourkela with regard to entitlement of maintenance by opposite party No.1 but the appeal was dismissed for default. On the other hand, Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2022 filed by opposite party No.1 was allowed on contest and to the extent indicted in the judgment dated 13^th September, 2024 with a direction to the petitioner to pay the enhanced maintenance and compensation besides to bear the expenses towards her alternative accommodation. Both the decisions of the learned courts below as to the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2022 on account of default and the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2022 having been allowed in favour of opposite party No.1, the petitioner has preferred the revisions.

6. Opposite part