IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No.07 of 2025 Ashok Sahu @ Ashok Kumar Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. B. Tripathy, Advocate -versus- Topai Sahu …. Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 15.07.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 02. 1. The Petitioner before this Court challenges the judgment dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Boudh in Criminal Proceeding No.23 of 2023. The Opposite Party herein who was the Petitioner before the leaned Judge, Family Court filed the said petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance @ Rs.7,000/-. 2. It has been stated in the application as noted by the learned Judge, Family Court that the marriage between the Opposite Party and the Petitioner herein was solemnized 35 years back. From the wedlock two children, i.e., one son and one daughter were born. Then the present Petitioner was working as Supervisor in the Office of the Divisional Manager, Odisha Forest Development Corporation, Boudh. It is further stated that the Petitioner had accepted a lady of village-Baghiapada under Boudh Police Station as his second wife about 30 years back. Thereafter, he started neglecting his wife and children. The pension amount received by the Petitioner is stated in the application to be Rs.25,000/-. 3. Before the learned Court the Opposite Party-wife examined herself as P.W.1 and another independent witness as P.W.2. Opposite Party examined himself as OPW 1. The Petitioner relied on documents marked as Exts.1 to 3. The Opposite Party-present petitioner relied on documents marked as Exts. A to H. The Opposite Party proved her case as stated in the pleadings, withstood cross examination. P.W.2 in his evidence which remained unchallenged stated that the Petitioner-wife and the Opposite Party-husband were married, they live as husband and wife and they have two children. The documents exhibited by the wife-petitioner are public documents, i.e., ‘Green Card’ issued by the Chief District Medical Officer, Kandhamal – Ext.3 which shows the Petitioner as husband of the Opposite Party and mentions the names of the two children. Similarly, Ext.2 also showed the Petitioner to be the husband of the Opposite Party. The Bank Passbook also disclosed that the Petitioner to be the husband of the Opposite Party. 4. Regarding Ext.1,2 & 3 marked by the Opposite Party cross examination was not done. Therefore, they remain unchallenged. 5. Somehow the present Petitioner tried to prove his marriage to another lady by producing the marriage invitation card with the other lady, to deny liability to pay maintenance. 6. The petition was favoured by the learned Family Court, however, granting monthly maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- from the date of filing of the application dated 27.07.2023. Challenging the judgment passed by the learned Family Court, it is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Opposite Party is not his wife. Whether such a plea can be countenanced in an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court at length in Rajnesh vs. Neha1 (at paragraphs 37,38, 39 & 40 of SCC print), reproduced herein: “37. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the 1 Rajnesh v. Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324 : 2020 INSC 631 constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. 38. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 39. The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in relationship for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim under Section 125 CrPC came up for consideration in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha [Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 666. This judgment was referred to a larger Bench.] before the Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be entitled to maintenance. A man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term “wife”, to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in 2003, which recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage. 40. The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubine age, when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC such strict standard of proof is not necessary. [Kamala v. M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ) 732 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 242]” 7. As has been further observed and directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra) the monthly maintenance granted is akin to a money decree. On being asked, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits upon instruction that the Petitioner remains in default of the amount directed to be paid. Total amount due since 27.07.2023 comes to Rs.2,25,000/ In order to sustain the challenge before this Court the learned counsel for the Petitioner was asked whether the Petitioner would secure the amount by depositing the same before the learned Family Court. Learned counsel submits that the Petitioner cannot pay. 8. Earlier on 15.05.2026 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner the facts of the case as well as the propositions of law were noted and the following direction was issued at Paragraph-8 which is reproduced herein: “8. The petitioner shall file affidavit indicating his last pay drawn, total amount of retiral benefits received, details of his employer by 01.07.2026 as adjournment is sought for on behalf of the learned counsel for the Petitioner.” 9. Today the matter being listed and taken up for ‘Fresh Admission’ memo of date is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner which states thus: amit “That I have filed the memo for withdrawal of the above mentioned case though the party is not contacted. I have trying to contact the petitioner but no contact. , Therefore I request this Hon’ble Court may be withdrawn with liberty to file a better petition.” (sic) The memo shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be updated. 10. In view of the above the petition is disposed of. 11. Copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry to the learned Judge, Family Court, Boudh to be kept in records of Criminal Proceeding No.23 of 2023 disposed of by judgment dated 03.12.2024. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge