IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM NOs.231 & 142 of 2024 (An application U/S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984).

Yernagula Malathi @ … Petitioner Bavisetti Malathi (in RPFAM No.231 of 2024)

Mr. R.N. Prusty, Advocate -versus-

Bavisetty Santosh Kumar … Opposite Party Mr. D. Panda, Advocate Bavisetty Santosh Kumar … Petitioner @ B. Santosh Kumar (in RPFAM No.142 of 2024)

Mr. D. Panda, Advocate -versus-

Yernagula Malathi … Opposite Party Mr. R.N. Prusty, Advocate CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING :04.03.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT :19.03.2025 G. Satapathy, J.

1. Both the spouses have preferred the above two separate revisions challenging the same impugned judgment dated 22.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Paralakhemundi in Criminal Proceeding No. 26 of 2022 directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife with effect from 04.08.2022 towards maintenance in an application U/S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( in short the “Code”) filed by the wife.

2. The grievance/relief sought for by the wife in RPFAM No. 231 of 2024 is for enhancement of the maintenance amount as awarded to her by the impugned judgment, whereas the husband’s grievance in RPFAM No. 142 of 2024 is for setting aside the impugned judgment on the ground of wife voluntarily leaving his company without any sufficient cause and in the alternative, for reducing the quantum of maintenance.

3. The undisputed facts as found from the trial Court’s record in precise are Smt. Yernagula Malathi @ Bavisetti Malathi has married to Bavisetty Santosh Kumar and their marriage was solemnized on 15.06.2019 at Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh in terms of Hindu Customary Rites. After marriage, the wife and husband stayed together at Bangalore for some time, but in the month of September, 2019, the wife came to Visakhapatnam to prosecute her MCA course. It is, however, alleged by the wife that during her stay at Visakhapatnam, her parents-in-law ill- treated her and thereafter she returned back to Bangalore and stayed there with her husband for some time. However, the dissension between both the spouses started on various reasons and grounds leading to lodging of FIR by the wife against the husband. On the aforesaid backdrop, the wife filed an application U/S. 125 of the Code against the husband claiming for maintenance, but the husband initially did not appear in the proceeding for maintenance and the maintenance proceeding was decided ex-parte against the husband vide judgment dated 29.10.2022 and when such ex-parte judgment for maintenance was put to execution in CRP No. 45 of 2023 in which subsequently the bank accounts of the husband was put on hold in such proceeding, the husband filed an application U/S. 126(2) of the Code in which he was successful in setting aside the ex-parte judgment and the matter was heard afresh and the present impugned judgment is accordingly passed.

4. In opposing the claim of the wife, the husband in his written objection while denying all the allegations raised against him stated inter alia that when in the month of November, 2020 he was served with a notice from his employer for termination of his job w.e.f. 07.04.2021, the wife apprehending to be deprived of enjoying a luxurious life started creating disturbance in his family and voluntarily deserted him by going to attend the marriage ceremony of her brother and thereafter, did not return and subsequently lodged criminal complaint against him and his family members causing harassment and humiliation to the family. The husband has specifically stated in his objection that the petitioner being a qualified lady having MCA Degree has worked with the company “Zetagile Info Solution Private Ltd” at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telengana, but she having suppressed such fact before the Court is not entitled to maintenance. In the alternative, the husband prays to reduce the quantum of maintenance on the ground that he being a jobless husband is unab