IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 1522 of 2025 Soumya Prakash Parhi …. Petitioner Mr. R.K. Panda, Advocate -versus-

Amruta Dash …. Opp. Party None CORAM:

JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH THE HON’BLE MR.

OR DER

Order No. 15.12.2025

01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. By means of this application, the Petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar, in CRP No.09 of 2014, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Opposite Party as an interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, during the course of hearing at the stage of admission, drew the attention of this Court to the averments made in the application as well as to the discussions and observations recorded by the learned court in the impugned order. It is submitted that the petition filed by the Opposite Party- Wife under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was initially disposed of ex-parte against the present Petitioner, directing him to pay a sum of Rs.13,500/- towards interim maintenance. The Petitioner complied with the said direction and continued to pay the interim maintenance, without any arrears, until the ex-parte interim order was set aside on 24.10.2024 in CMC No.03 of 2022. It is further submitted that, upon the Petitioner’s participation in the proceedings and pursuant to the application allowed under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C., the learned court thereafter proceeded to dispose of the application for interim maintenance.

4. Taking into account the plea of the present Petitioner, wherein the Petitioner had disclosed his income, assets and liabilities, the learned counsel submitted that in the aforesaid application for interim maintenance, the Petitioner claimed that his monthly income is Rs.3,32,266/-. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Opposite Party- Wife is a practising lawyer and has income of her own, besides some business out of which she earns. The matter with respect to the fact that the Opposite Party-Wife is a practising lawyer and also in business is a matter to be decided by the court in accordance with law.

5. However, having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel, assailing the impugned order dated 17.09.2025, this Court is of the view that the learned court has taken a pragmatic approach while coming to the conclusion enhancing the interim maintenance from Rs.13,500/- passed ex-parte against the Petitioner to Rs.20,000/- per month. Keeping in view the income of the Petitioner and expenses to be borne by the Opposite Party- Wife, the reasons assigned by the learned court in the impugned order requires no interference in as much as the learned court has taken into account the plea propounded by both the parties and this being an interim order that would merge with the final order, no infirmity can be found in the said order at this stage. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for Petitioner with regard to his income and the expenditure allegedly required to be considered and need be appropriately addressed at the time of final adjudication of the main application cannot be ignored.

6. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that, as the impugned order is prima facie in consonance with the materials available on record and interim in nature, no interference is called for at this stage. However, it is observed that the learned court shall take into account the affidavit filed by the Petitioner with regard to his income and expenditure while adjudicating the main application. Since the Petitioner has been regularly depositing the interim maintenance without any default, it is expected that the learned court shall proceed to dispose of the main application, which has been pending since 2017, within a period of three months, if there is no other legal impediment. With the aforesaid