IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI
Bishikeshan Bhal – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the maintenance proceeding in CRP No.133 of 2007 pending in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and to set aside all consequential orders, contending that continuation of the proceeding amounts to abuse of process in light of the wife’s alleged conduct and criminal conviction.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The dispute arises out of CRP No. 133 of 2007 pending before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, filed by the wife (Opp. Party No.2) under Section 125 CrPC seeking monthly maintenance from the husband (petitioner in CRLMC).
(ii) In CRP No. 133/2007, the Family Court passed an ex parte order dated 20.08.2008 directing the husband to pay Rs.1,200 per month to the wife from the date of application i.e., 16.03.2007, recording that the husband entered appearance but remained absent and was set ex parte on multiple dates before final order.
(iii) The husband challenged the ex parte maintenance order before the High Court in RPFAM No. 02 of 2009, which was disposed of on 23.08.2024, granting
Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are welfare-oriented, allowing both parties to present their case in Family Court despite allegations that may affect entitlement.
A divorce on grounds of desertion does not stop a divorced woman from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, thus recognizing her entitlement despite earlier payments treated as permanent alimo....
The right to maintenance under S.125, CrPC is absolute and designed to ensure dignified living for spouses and children, despite claims of financial hardship by the husband.
The court emphasized the summary nature of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the objective to provide immediate relief to the applicant.
A husband's imprisonment for non-payment does not absolve his obligation to pay maintenance; ongoing enforcement is essential to protect the recipient's welfare.
The judgment established the requirement for conclusive evidence of cruelty under section 498A of IPC and the distinction between cruelty and entitlement to maintenance under section 125 of the Code.
Maintenance – Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children.
There is no bar to seek maintenance under different statutes, and the amount awarded should not overlap and should be inclusive of maintenance under each jurisdiction and not exclusive.
Broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term 'wife' to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of t....
(1) Right to get maintenance embodies sacrosanct principles of social justice.(2) Liability to maintain is continuous, enforceable, and insulated from considerations of proprietary holdings, flowing ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.