IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.290 of 2022 (In the matter of an application Under Section-19(4) of Family Court Act read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973)

Lili Das …. Petitioner -versus-

Parikhita Prusty …. Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahoo, Advocate For Opposite : Mr. K.C.Kar, Advocate Party CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:21.01.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This present revision by Petitioner-wife seeks to challenge the impugned judgment dated 06.05.2022 passed in Criminal Proceeding No. 205 of 2019 by which the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur has directed the OP-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife towards maintenance w.e.f 04.10.2019 in an application U/S.

125 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard, Mr. Akshaya Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Kishore Chandra Kar, learned counsel for the OP in the matter and perused the record.

3. Admittedly, no affidavit of assets and liabilities are filed by either of the parties to the proceeding, but in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha and another; (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Apex Court has issued a mandatory guidelines in deciding the claim for maintenance in matrimonial proceeding and accordingly, all the Courts are required to follow the said guidelines in letter and spirit, since 04.11.2020 on which date the aforesaid celebrated judgment in Rajnesh(supra) was delivered. In this premises, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in Aditi Vrs. Jitesh Sharma; (2023) SCC Online SC 1451 wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-15 has held thus:-

“15. Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of judgment of this Court in Rajnesh's case (supra), which was directed to be communicated to all the High Courts for further circulation to all the Judicial Officers for awareness and implementation. The case in hand is not in isolation. Even after pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is still coming across number of cases decided by the courts below fixing maintenance, either interim or final, without their being any affidavit on record filed by the parties. Apparently, the officers concerned have failed to take notice of the guidelines issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance. Comprehensive guidelines were issued pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among courts when concurrent remedies for grant of maintenance are available under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded, enforcement of orders of maintenance including fixing payment of interim maintenance. As a result, the litigation which should close at the trial level is taken up to this Court and the parties are forced to litigate.”

4. The judgment in Rajnesh(supra) was delivered on 04.11.2020 and thereby, the affidavit was required to be submitted in terms of the aforesaid judgment in all maintenance proceeding including pending proceeding. In this case, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment has assessed the income of the husband @ Rs. 44,000/- per month as his gross salary, but granted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the maintenance of the wife. Had the parties been allowed to file affidavit of assets and liabilities, the matter would have been different and in that event, the Court would have got a clear picture as to the requirement of the Petitioner-wife and the liabilities of the OP-husband and, accordingly, the trial Court would have decided the quantum of maintenance. However, the learned trial Court ignoring the guidelines issued in Rajnesh(supra) has passed the impugned judgment which is required to be set aside an