IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.95 of 2025 An application under Section 19 of the Family Court Act read with Section 442 of BNSS Act, 2023.

---------------

Md. Anwar Ansari … … Petitioner -Versus-

Ummul Akhair Akhtari … … Opp. Party Advocates appeared in the case:

For Petitioner : Ms. Prabhasi Nayak, Advocate For Opp. Party : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Das, Advocate ------------------

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decided on 04^th May, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1. The application is filed by the husband in the marriage seeking revision of the judgment dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Bhadrak in Criminal Proceeding No.231 of 2022. The said criminal proceeding was filed by the wife in the marriage. The parties to the proceeding before the learned Judge, Family Court are governed by Mohammedan Law. Their marriage was solemnized on 15.07.2019. The wife filed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by the pari materia provision contained in Section 144 of BNSS, 2023) seeking monthly maintenance @ Rs.50,000/-

(rupees fifty thousand only).

2. The present petitioner being the opposite party appeared filed his written objection in response to the petition of the wife in the marriage. The learned Judge, Family Court after completion of the pleadings by the parties, framed the following issues:

“Considering the pleadings of both the parties, the following points need to be discussed.

i) Is the petition maintainable in the eye of law?

ii) Whether, the petitioner is the wife of the opp. party?

iii) Whether, the opposite party having sufficient means, has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner?

iv) Whether, the petitioner is unable to maintain herself?

v) Whether, the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance from the opposite party & if so, what should be the quantum of maintenance?”

3. The deposition of the petitioner as P.W.1. The documents exhibited by the petitioner i.e. Exts.1 to 7 were delved into by the learned Court and discussed at paragraph 5 of the judgment, which is reproduced herein:

“5. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1. Documents such as certified copy of R.O.Rs of Mouza-Champua. Letter issued by RTO (with report) Keonjhar dtd.22.02.2023 obtained through RTI, Copy of GST Registration No.6 of Md. Anwar Ansara. Original Marriage certificate issued by Marriage Officer, Bhadrak, Certified copy of F.I.R. In Bhadrak (T) P.S. Case No.208 dtd.03.06.2022 & Original Notice along with copy of petition in C.P.57/2022 of the Court of Judge Family Bhadrak, Keonjhar have been adduced on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, the opp.party has examined himself as OPW-1 & his father as OPW.2. But O.P. has not proved any document from his side.”

4. The learned Court has taken note of the fact that regarding the first marriage of the petitioner and having a child from her first marriage was never concealed from the opposite party-husband. The opposite party-husband has filed proceeding under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act bring dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner-

wife-opposite party herein.

5. The learned Judge, Family Court has observed at paragraph 10 of the judgment after discussing the statement and evidence.

“… The O.P. even admitted that the pleadings filed in the C.P. case before Judge Family Court, Keonjhar are correct. The petitioner has proved the copy of the petition of CP No.57/2022 filed before the Judge, Family Court, Keonjhar vide Ext.7. I have gone through the Ext.7 minutely. The petition is filed under Sec.27 of Special Marriage Act, wherein, the O.P. had prayed the court for dissolving the marriage tie between himself and the petitioner.”

6. The learned Judge, Family Court has further observed at paragraph 11 o