IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.18 of 2021 (In the matter of an application Under Section 19(4) of the Family Court, 1984, r/w Section-401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

G.Debendra Rao …. Petitioner -versus-

G.Puspa Prabha Rao & another …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. B.P.B. Bahali, Advocate For Opposite : Mr. A.Pradhan, Advocate Party CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16.09.2025 G. Satapathy, J.

1.

In the instant revision, the petitioner-

husband seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 23.12.2019 passed in CMC No. 52-734 of 2012-16 by which the learned Judge Family Court, Bargarh has allowed the petition filed U/s. 125 of CrPC of OP-wife and daughter for maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- each per month; total Rs.10,000/- w.e.f. 06.03.2012.

2. The short facts involved in this case are that the petitioner and OP No.1 who are the husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 19.01.2001 according to their caste and customs and after their marriage, they are blessed with a girl child who is OP No.2 in this case. However, owing to dissension and rancor between them with regard to allegation of demand of further dowry articles, the OP No.1 reported the matter to Mahila Sammittee, Bargarh and thereafter, the revision-petitioner allegedly deserted the OPs in the year 2004. Thus, the revision- petitioner filed MAT Case No. 06 of 2004 against the present OPNo.1 before the learned Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Sambalpur for dissolution of their marriage and such proceeding was decreed ex-parte on 08.03.2007, but thereafter, the present OP No.1 filed a petition under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( in short, “the CPC”) to set aside the above ex-parte decree in CMA No. 28 of 2007 which was dismissed for default on 02.02.2012 and thereafter, the present OPNo.1 filed another petition U/s. 151 of CPC to set aside the order dated 02.02.2012 as passed in CMA No. 28 of 2007 which proceeding was registered as CMA No. 13 of 2012.

While the matter stood thus, the present OPs filed a petition U/s. 125 of CrPC against the revision-petitioner for grant of maintenance and in such petition, the present OPs have averred that the revision-petitioner is an Advocate and earns Rs.20,000/- per month, out of his profession and he also earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month from his Hero Honda showroom and Rs.50,000/-

per month from house rent.

In resisting such claim, the present revision-petitioner filed his show cause denying his liability, but admitting the relationship with present OPs. In such objection, the revision-petitioner has also averred that the present OP No.1 is a qualified lady with MA LLB Degree and she is earning more than him and she being a LIC Agent & Teacher in private school with landed property and building at heart of Bargarh town, does not need any money to maintain herself or their daughter. It is also claimed by revision-petitioner that since present OP No.1 voluntarily deserted him without any cause is not entitled to be maintained and he is not having any landed property and his old and ailing mother being dependent on him with his two younger brothers is not able to pay the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- each to the OP Nos. 1 & 2. It is also contended in the objection by the revision-petitioner that he has a small residential house over land of about Ac.0.07dec. at Ainthapali Sambalpur which belong to his father and he thereby having no other house has not given any house on rent. With the aforesaid averments, the revision-petitioner has prayed to dismiss the maintenance proceeding.

3. After having considered the rival pleas upon hearing the parties, the learned Judge Family Court, Bargarh by formulating some points proceeded to dispose the maintenance proceeding U/S. 125 of CrPC by allowing the same with consequential direction to the present revision-petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- each to his wife and daughter total Rs.10,000/- per month w.e.f. 06.03.2012.