##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RPFAM No.411 of 2025

Rakesh Kumar Dash (cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Petitioner

Mr. S.K. Barik, Advocate

-versus-

Kumkum Sarangi (cid:0)«(cid:0)(cid:17) Opp. Party

CORAM:

(cid:0)+(cid:0)2(cid:0)1(cid:0)•(cid:0)%(cid:0)/(cid:0)M((cid:0)(cid:3)R. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

Order No. 07.04.2026

03. ( Hybrid Mode )

1. The matter was heard at length on 28.01.2026. Learned counsel for the Petitioner had adjournment to address regarding the jurisdiction of this Court

under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act and also the revisional jurisdiction. When again on 13.03.2026 the matter was taken up, another learned counsel sought for adjournment and the matter was adjourned. Today, Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that notice may be

issued.

2. In considered opinion of this Court for exercising jurisdiction under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act read with the revisional

Page1 of 9

jurisdiction, this Court has to be prima facie satisfied that a case is made out for issuance of notice looking at the materials on record, i.e., the judgment of learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela and pleadings

and depositions as would be available.

3. The revision is challenge to the judgment dated 13.11.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rouekela in Criminal Proceeding No.20 of 2024. The Petitioner-wife and Opposite Party-

husband got married on 01.03.2023 at Rourkela. The proceeding was initiated by the wife in the marriage

then aged about 31 years under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance, stating that to

prevent destitution and vagrancy she requires Rs.30,000/- per month.

The present Petitioner-husband appeared and contested the matter by filing written statement. The

claimant examined herself as P.W. 1 and Opposite Party examined himself as OPW 1, the father of the Opposite Party-present Petitioner deposed as OPW 2.

The learned Judge, Family Court has dealt with the essential ingredients of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Opposite Party husband contended that the Petitioner wife was earning, but did not adduce any evidence. The further finding of fact by the learned

Judge, Family Court that the Petitioner used to work when she was with her husband and after she left

Page2 of 9

the matrimonial house she has stopped working and she had filed a proceeding seeking divorce. The

husband was directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as maintenance per month to the Petitioner from the

date of application, i.e., 24.02.2024.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner upon instruction submits that the Petitioner has not paid

any amount towards interim maintenance or maintenance to the Opposite Party wife from

24.02.2024 till 24.03.2026 for 25 months the amounting comes to Rs.3,75,000/-.

4. The scope and application of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been elaborately dealt with by the

(cid:0)+(cid:0)R(cid:0)Q(cid:0)•(cid:0)E(cid:0)O(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)6(cid:0)X(cid:0)S(cid:0)U(cid:0)H(cid:0)P(cid:0)HR(cid:0)(cid:3)a(cid:0)&je(cid:0)Rns(cid:0)Xh (cid:0)Uv.(cid:0) WN(cid:0)e(cid:3) (cid:0)hLa(cid:0)Q: (cid:0)2(cid:3)020 INSC 631: (2021) 2 SCC 324 . The relevant

paragraphs are reproduced herein.

(cid:0)·36. The amended Section 125 reads as under:

(cid:0)·125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents .(cid:0)‡(1) If any person

having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain (cid:0)‡

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child,

whether married or not, unable to maintain it self, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority,

where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain

itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain

himself or herself, a Magistrate of the First Class

Page3 of 9

may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the

maintenance of his wife or such child, fathe