A.F.R.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No. 65 of 2026 An application under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 438 read with section 442 of the BNSS, 2023.

Rajkishor Rath …. Petitioner Versus Kalyani Panda …. Opposite Party Advocates appeared in the case :

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Bihari Das, Advocate For Opp. Party :

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

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

Decided on : 31.03.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHR SAHOO :

1. The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before this Court seeking revision of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Criminal Proceeding No.216 of 2023 under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sections 438 and 442 of BNSS, 2023. By the said judgment, the learned Judge Family Court has allowed the application filed by the wife in the marriage under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. granting maintenance for an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of application i.e. 05.10.2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at some length on 09.03.2026 and is again heard today at length. The copies of pleadings of the parties and the depositions before the learned Judge, Family Court being available are considered.

3. To challenge the judgment, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judge Family Court has not taken note of income of the petitioner. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to show the written statement filed before the learned Judge Family Court in the proceeding wherein the impugned order was passed. He refers to page 22 of the petition Annexure-3 series to submit that the affidavit indicating assets and liabilities would indicate the monthly income of the petitioner. Learned counsel was further asked to take note of the relied upon document which at page 25, paragraph 3 indicates that monthly income is Rs.7,000/- per month.

4. At paragraph 4 of the judgment, the learned family court has noted statement of the wife that the petitioner herein, husband in the marriage is serving in Danagadi Block as clerk, earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Apparently, the said submission and assertion of the wife has remained unrebutted. The income of the petitioner @ Rs.30,000/- per month and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from agriculture have formed the basis for the learned family court awarding the maintenance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to go through the order dated 9.3.2026 where his submissions were noted and the deliberations were also noted involving the legal issues.

In response it is emphatically stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-judgment debtor will not pay any maintenance as he is not earning any amount.

6. In view of the categorical submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will not pay any maintenance or secure the amount before this Court, to sustain the challenge this Court has to proceed further on the basis of the said submissions.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he will satisfy this Court to interfere in revision, if granted further adjournment.

In considered opinion of this Court the matter cannot be adjourned repeatedly at the instance of the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner hands over a note before this Court and refers to same which was not part of the records in the proceeding before learned trial court. In considered view of this Court whether the petitioner is earning any amount or not, is a matter of evidence on record that was to be pleaded and proved before the learned Family Court in the proceeding that was decided by the said court.

On perusal of the judgment it is seen that, learned Judge, Family Court proceeded on the basis that the petit