p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 309 of 2024 Rudra Prasad Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- Sanjukta Sahoo …. Opposite Party Mr. T. Sinha, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 17.02.2026 05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party. 2. Assailing the judgment dated 06.05.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Presiding Officer, Designated under OPID Act, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2024 enhancing the interim compensation awarded by the learned J.M.F.C.-IV (Cog. Taking) Cuttack vide order dated 29.11.2023 in DV CMC No.01 of 2023 from Rs.7,000/- to 30,000/-, the present criminal revision has been filed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the enhancement of interim compensation is ex-facie perverse and arbitrary, not taking into account the capacity of the Petitioner to p. 2 pay and it is further submitted that since the proceeding is lingering and the Petitioner’s engagement is project based, such direction is causing hardship. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-wife submits that, on analysis of the materials on record in a cogent manner, taking into account the documents upon which the Petitioner himself relied and the affidavit filed relating to assets and liabilities and that he was getting a basic salary of Rs.87,200/- apart from allowances, the learned Appellate Court came to a finding that the salary of the present Petitioner won’t be less than Rs.1,50,000/-. 5. It is submitted that such approach cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 6. On perusal of the impugned order of the learned Appellate Court, it is seen that the learned Appellate Court has referred, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Opposite Party that “………….OP himself mentioned in his affidavit assets and liabilities statement that he is getting Rs.87,200/- basic salary excluding allowances…………” p. 3 7. And, the learned Appellate Court made a guesswork that the present Petitioner must be getting around of Rs.1,50,000/- as his salary. 8. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has other societal responsibilities in as much as his mother is dependent on his income, his father unfortunately having passed away recently after prolonged illness and for treatment of his father substantial amount has to be spent. Hence, the amount directed to be paid as interim compensation is ex-facie exorbitant. 9. Considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be subserved if the amount as directed is modified to be 25% of the basic salary of Rs.87,200/- , which, for the purpose of calculation, is taken to be Rs.88,000/-, and accordingly, the interim maintenance is modified from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.22,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the CRLREV stands disposed of. 11. In view of the disposal of the CRLREV, pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (V. Narasingh) Judge Santoshi