IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.36 of 2022 Prafulla Kumar Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Tripathy, Advocate -versus- Annapurna Mishra …. Opp. Party CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 11.03.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 03. 1. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner the defect no.4(a) as pointed by the S.R. regarding authentication fee to be paid has already been removed. The payment of court fees is substantiated by the receipt produced in Court. Receipt shall be filed in the Registry and taken on record. Scanned copy be updated. 2. Revision of judgment dated 16.11.2026 rendered by the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No. 470 of 2014 is sought for. By the said judgment the petition filed by the petitioner-husband in the marriage under section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order dated 17.11.2014 passed in Criminal Proceeding No. 606 of 2011 was dismissed. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the petitioner had taken a plea of not taking steps from 10.07.2014 to 23.11.2011 due to financial crisis. Petitioner had produced the medical certificate claiming that he was ill for the said period. But the petitioner has admitted in cross examination that he had performed his duty as teacher in the Govt. school from 10.07.2014 to 23.11.2014. 3. The further plea taken before learned Judge, Family Court was that in the ‘settlement/compromise petition’ i.e., captioned in vernacular as ‘Rafanama’, the wife in the marriage had put her signature agreeing to a condition that she would never claim any enhancement of maintenance that was awarded in 1995 in the Criminal Proceeding No. 574 of 1991. Apparently the plea of financial crisis substantiated by medical certificate fell apart, upon cross examination of the petitioner as he stated that he was doing his duty as teacher in the Govt. school. 4. At paragraph-5 of the judgment dated 17.11.2014 regarding award of ₹4000/- by enhancing the amount of ₹300/- pursuant to the claim in the year 1991, following has been indicated : “05. Having heard the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record as it appears since 1995 the OP has been paying monthly maintenance @ Re.300/- per month, as per order passed on compromise in CRP No.574/91. In the mean time, more than 15 years has already been elapsed. The Ext.1 discloses that the gross salary of the OP in the year 2011 was Rs.20,109/- which must have increased by now. Having regard to the present cost of living, the person cannot maintain herself during the entire month with a sum of Rs.300/-. So in the changed circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to get enhancement of maintenance dues. Hence, it is ordered : ORDER The petition is allowed ex parte against the OP, without cost. The original maintenance awarded in favour of petitioner @ Rs.300/-per month is enhanced to Rs.4000/- per month from the date of the application. Accordingly, the OP is dirécted to pay the maintenance to the petitioner at the enhanced rate.” 5. A further factual finding has been given by the Court that salary certificate of the petitioner-husband shows that gross salary in the year 2011 was ₹20,109/- and the learned Court has taken into account cost of living in the year 2014 to enhance the amount to ₹4,000/- from ₹300/-. 6. Though the learned trial court has not gone into the aspect of compromise decree that purportedly ‘restrained’ the wife from claiming any enhancement, it would be apt and appropriate to refer to the provision of Indian Contract Act, 1872 which provides at section 28. Section 28 is reproduced herein: “Agreements in restraint of legal proceedings, void. [Every agreement,— (a) by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunals, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights; or (b) which extinguishes the rights of any party thereto, or discharges any party thereto from any liability, under or in respect of any contract on the expiry of a specified period so as to restrict any party from enforcing his rights, is void to that extent.] xxx xxx xxx xxx” 7. Now, assuming that the wife had made a statement in ‘compromise deed’ that she will not claim any enhancement, if the said document is elevated to the status of an agreement, it is hit by section 28. 8. It has to be noted that a right that was being considered by the trial court emanates from provision i.e. section 125 of Cr.P.C. (since repealed and substituted by parimateria provision contained in BNSS, 2025). Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was enacted by the legislature which is relatable to the Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. 9. The matter was earlier heard at length and details order was passed on 04.02.2026. Today when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner files memo of date which states thus: “That the petitioner wants to withdraw the present case and permission may kindly be given to that effect. Hence appropriate order may kindly passed.” The memo shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be updated. 10. In view of the memo filed, the petition is disposed of. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack to be kept in the records of Criminal Proceeding No.470 of 2014. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge jyostna