p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.18 of 2023 Jarima Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. A. Tripathy, Proxy Counsel -versus- Purna Chandra Pradhan …. Opposite Parties . CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 09.01.2026 01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Proxy Counsel seeks leave of this Court to argue the matter on behalf of Mr. G. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He is permitted to do so. 3. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned Proxy Counsel for the Petitioner. 4. It is revealed from the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2022 that the application filed by the Petitioner- wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stood rejected taking into consideration the income of the Petitioner-wife so also Opposite Party-husband, both of them being retired employees and getting pension. Paragraph-9 of the said judgment, being relevant, is reproduced below: “9. Now coming to the income of the petitioner, From Ext.3 proved by the petitioner, it reflects Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 10-Jan-2026 14:14:42 Signature Not Verified p. 2 that she is getting Rs.36,542/- per month as regular pension after commutation of her pension. There is no dispute to above facts. On the other hand, Ext.2 i.e. pension payment order of the Opp. Party shows that he is getting Rs.33,526/(Rupees thirty three thousand five hundred twenty six) per month towards pension. The petitioner proved the RoR bearing Khata No.22, of Mouza Gudrighasi which stands recorded in the name of the father of the present Opp. Party as Ext.1. On perusal of the same, nothing is forthcoming that the Opp. Party is doing pisciculture over the same and getting Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) per month. No satisfactory evidence is produced by the petitioner to show that the Opp. Party is having extra income apart from his monthly pension. As such the statement of the petitioner that the opp. Party is leading a luxurious life by earning Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) from pisciculture and Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand) monthly rent is found, to be unbelievable. The Ext.2 and Ext.3 which are relied by the present petitioner clearly established the fact that the opp. Party is getting less pension from the present petitioner. The age of the Opp. Party is also approximately 10 years higher than the present petitioner. Under the above circumstances, it cannot be said the Opp. Party is living a luxurious life and the petitioner needs maintenance from him to maintain a standard of live to commensurate with the standard of living of the opp. Party.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Prasant (S.K. Mishra) Judge