IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29782 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Articles 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India).

Subhendu Mishra … Petitioner -versus-

Anita Pati … Opposite Party For Petitioner : Mr. A.Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party : None CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.01.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This writ petition by the petitioner-husband is directed against the impugned order dated 17.08.2024 passed by learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela in Interim Application No. 11 of 2021 arising out of Civil Proceeding No. 163 of 2020 directing the petitioner-husband to pay pendentelite maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to OP-

wife in an application U/S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner unequivocally submits that the petitioner-husband is already suffering from an order of maintenance as ordered by learned JMFC, Panposh in a DV application and he is paying Rs.8000/- per month to OP-wife for such proceeding, but without taking such fact into account, the learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela has passed the impugned order directing the petitioner- husband pendentelite maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the OP-wife in an application U/S. 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not clarify as to which period the petitioner- husband has to pay the pendentelite maintenance, but fact remains that the petitioner-husband has already successfully withdrawn civil proceeding, however, the impugned order was passed before withdrawal of the civil proceeding and, therefore, necessary clarification may kindly be issued to suggest that for which period, the petitioner would pay the pendentelite maintenance. 3. Having carefully considered the submission as advanced for the petitioner upon perusal of record, since the prayer of the petitioner would not affect the merit of the case, so also the OP adversely, the notice against OP-wife may be dispensed with. It is made clear that in a proceeding in the nature of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, the maintenance has to be paid to the other spouse during the pendency of the proceeding which is clearly reflected in Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act which begins with the sentence “maintenance pendentelite and expenses of the proceeding” and it is made clear therein that wherein any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly during the proceeding such some as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent, it may seen to the Court to be reasonable. The relevant operative part of the impugned order reads as under:-

“It is further observed that any order of maintenance/financial assistance earlier made under different statutes, in favour of the petitioner be adjusted and set off from the present award.”

4. In this case, the petitioner apprehends that he is required to pay his OP-wife such amount of maintenance as ordered in DV Misc. Case and as ordered by the impugned order simultaneously, but fact remains that the learned Trial Court has made it clear that the maintenance/financial assistance earlier made under different statutes in favour of the petitioner be adjusted/ set off from the present award and, therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded and he has to pay only the differential amount for the period w.e.f the date of filing of the application in IA No. 11 of 2021 till disposal of the proceeding in CP No. 163 of 2020. However, after disposal of the aforesaid CP, the petitioner has to satisfy the maintenance as ordered in DV Misc. Case, unless the same is set