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

1. The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before this Court challenging the judgment dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara in Criminal Proceeding No.1 of 2014.

By the said judgment the application filed by the opposite party-wife in the marriage under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by parimateria provision contained in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) claiming monthly maintenance was allowed directing payment of Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance from the 02.01.2014 i.e. date of application.

2. Though the revision petition has been filed in the year 2023 notices have not been issued and the matter is listed for the first time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard at length.

No notice is issued in view of the judgment/order that is to be passed by this Court.

The available pleadings of the parties and materials on record have been gone into and deliberated upon.

3. In challenge to the judgment rendered by the learned Judge Family Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by parimateria provision contained in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Section 125 (4) of Cr. P. C. is reproduced herein:

"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-

(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be], from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent."

4. It is submitted that C.P. No.120 of 2013 was filed in the year 2013 by the petitioner-husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara. The said petition was allowed by judgment dated 16.01.2015 on contest, directing the opposite party-wife for restitution of conjugal rights within two months. It is submitted that despite the direction the wife never joined the company of the husband. Therefore, Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C. would operate disentitling the wife to receive maintenance.

5. Perusal of the impugned judgment which was extensively placed by the learned counsel, Mr. Mishra for the petitioner indicates that at paragraph-4 the issues have been framed which are thus:

"4. From the pleadings of both the parties, the following points are for determination:-

i) Whether the OP having sufficient means has neglected or refused to maintain the petitioner?

ii) Is the petitioner unable to maintain herself?

iii) Is the petitioner entitled for maintenance and, if so, what should be the quantum?

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=tuqye3PhFs%2BBDn75ghiOpLWNcvijwWkLUJWawDWA5Q8uU9qxcMkGT4%2FpJxX6YA1G&caseno=RPFAM/46/2023&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010114882023&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.