CUTTACK, India, March 11 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Feb. 10:

1. The petitioner-husband is before this Court challenging the order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhanjanagar, Ganjam in I.A. No.11 of 2025.

2. The I.A. No.11 of 2025 arises out of MAT Case No. 62 of 2021 filed and pending before the said Court. The MAT Case No.62 of 2021 was filed U/s.9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the opposite party-wife in the marriage seeking restitution of the conjugal rights.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is heard at length. The available pleadings of the parties and materials on record have been gone into in detail and are deliberated upon.

In view of the judgment that is going to be rendered notice is not issued to the opposite party.

4. The I.A. was filed U/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, claiming maintenance pendentelite @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per month and a consolidated litigation expenses of Rs. 30,000/-. However, while allowing the application the Court has directed payment of Rs. 40,000/- per month to the wife in the marriage who is also the mother of the minor child. The maintenance granted is the consolidated sum for both the mother and the child.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner was heard extensively and he raises the following contentions challenging the order: referring to the 98th "Report of Law Commission of India, Sections 24 to 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Orders for interim maintenance and orders for the maintenance of children in matrimonial proceedings"; it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the course adopted by the opposite party-wife in claiming maintenance pendentelite should have been an application U/s.24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for her and application U/s.26 of the Hindu Marriage Act for the child and not a consolidated application/single application.

6. In response to the said submission suffice it would be to observe that Chapter 7, recommendations of the report itself clarifies that the Commission has suggested amendment of the Act and nothing beyond that. After the suggestions were made the Act has not been amended. The Section 24 remains as it is.

7. This Court cannot nor the learned trial Court that has decided the matter could have referred/relied on the Law Commission Report so as to accept the interpretation that is tendered by the learned counsel.

It has to be held that the law Commission report unless reflected in the statute by amendment brought in by the Parliament in a Central Statute cannot be utilized to interpret a provision by the learned trial Court or this Court in a writ petition challenging the order of the trial Court.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kv%2Fg%2BkNm3DVIsK6uTOr8x4jVYbRjpcw1GQrSEZwAIBc6y&caseno=WP(C)/3370/2026&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010063142026&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.