IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.48 of 2026 Sibananda Nayak & Petitioner Mr. P. K. Sahoo, Advocate Mr. B. Das Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Suchitra Nayak &. Opposite Party Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH Order No. ORDER 09.03.2026 05. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Assailing the judgment dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No.51/2024, enhancing the maintenance awarded under the DV Act, 2005 from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.12,000/-, vide order dated 19.03.2024 in D.V. Misc. Case No.94 of 2023, the present criminal revision has been filed at the instance of the husband. 3. Learned counsels for the Petitioner Mr. P.K. Sahoo as well as Mr. B. Das Mohapatra submit that ex facie the enhancement is unjust, considering the materials on record and ignoring the liability of the Petitioner regarding maintenance of his ailing mother and the net salary being Rs.22,000/-. 4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there are series of litigations pending inter se between the parties, in as much as petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance act, 1956 are pending between the parties. Hence, there is no justification for enhancing the amount to Rs.12,000/- from Rs.5,000/- as awarded. 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that while awarding the sum of Rs.5,000/-, the learned Court of first instance had taken note of the rival contentions and hence the quantification of Rs.12,000/- by the Appellate Court, being the outcome of non-application of mind and perverse appreciation, is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel submits that the amount fixed at Rs.12,000/- cannot be said to be on the higher side, taking into account that the Opposite Party-wife has no independent source of income and has to look after the welfare of the daughter and son, who are aged about 8 and 4 years, respectively and both have started going to school. Page 3 of 5 7. And, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the amount as fixed is, in fact, abysmally low and, as such, ought not to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional powers. 8. This Court perused the materials on record including the asset and liability affidavit filed by the Petitioner (Appellant)-husband and the judgment of the learned JMFC-III (Cog. Taking) Cuttack fixing an amount of Rs.5,000/-. On a bare perusal of the said order, it is seen that though the learned Court was cognizant of the fact that there are two children who are now staying with the Opposite Party-wife, and in fact a case for seeking their custody is pending adjudication, did not award any amount for their well-being. 9. Learned Appellate Court taking note of the same in an appeal filed at the instance of the wife has enhanced the amount to Rs.12,000/-, impugned herein. 10. It is further noted that arrear in terms of the award passed by the learned JMFC-III (Cog. Taking) Cuttack, as well as the Appellate Court is to the tune of Rs.99,000/- and in terms of the order passed by this Court while issuing notice vide order dated 11.02.2026, an amount of Rs.67,000/- by way of Demand Draft has already been submitted and the arrears amount comes to Rs.32,000/-. 11. On a conspectus of materials on record, and considering the rival submissions, taking into account the age of the children and that the Petitioner has no other independent source of income, this Court feels that ends of justice would be sub-served, if the amount as awarded by the Appellate Court is modified to the tune of Rs.10,000/- consolidated towards the mother and two children. The amount shall be paid from the date of the application, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh vrs. Neha and anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 more particularly Paragraph Nos.96 and 131. For convenience of reference Paragraph Nos.96 and 131 are extracted hereunder:- <xxx xxx xxx 96. `The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependent children from destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from the date of application, the party seeking maintenance would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken for disposal of the application, which often runs into several years. 131. We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B - IV above. xxx xxx xxx= 12. It is further directed that the arrear amount of Rs.32,000/- shall be paid by 30.04.2026 before the Trial Court. On deposit, the same shall be released in favour of the Opposite Party-wife as per the procedure. The maintenance amount as modified shall be paid from 15.04.2026, from the date of application. In the event the arrear amount as directed and the amount as modified are not paid, it shall be open for the Court in seisin to take action in accordance with law for enforcement of the same. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision stands disposed of. (V. NARASINGH) Judge Jina