MITALI SAHOO vs SATYAJIT SAHOO
- Court
- Odisha High Court
WP(C)/14462/2025
ODHC010351682025
2025:OHC:7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227
of Constitution of India
CNR No. ODHC010351682025
Mitali Sahoo & another ....... Petitioners
-Versus-
Satyajit Sahoo ....... Opposite Party
Advocates for the parties
For Petitioner : Mr. K. Gaya, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. S. Chkravarty, Advocate
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 13.10.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. MISHRA, J.
1. The Petitioners have preferred the present writ petition
challenging the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in I.A. No.104 of 2024 (arising out of
C.P. No.813 of 2023).
1 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of
2. Petitioner No.1 is the mother guardian of Petitioner No.2.
An application for interim maintenance was filed under Section 24
of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for maintenance @
Rs.35,000/- per month. However, the learned Court below, vide the
impugned order, directed for payment of maintenance @ Rs.3,000/-
per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e.,
23.08.2024.
3. No counter affidavit has been filed till date opposing the
prayer for enhancement of the interim maintenance from
Rs.3,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. However, on consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for
hearing and disposal at the stage of admission, permitting the
learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband to have his oral
objection to the prayer made in the Writ Petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, drawing the attention of
this Court to the affidavit disclosing the assets and liabilities of the
Opposite Party-husband, filed before the learned Court below,
which is placed at Annexure-4, submits that the Opposite Party-
husband is presently serving as a Branch Manager in Axis Bank,
Bhadrak Branch, and is earning a monthly salary of Rs.71,000/-.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submits,
though the actual income of the opposite-party is more, which
2 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of
could not be substantiated by the Petitioner-wife as per the finding
of the learned Court below, in view of own admission of the
Opposite-party-husband, the interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/-
per month awarded in favour of Petitioner No.1, who is also
maintaining a six-year-old male child, namely, the Petitioner No.2,
is too meager. It would be extremely difficult for her to meet her
own living expenses, maintain her minor child and bear his
educational expenses, particularly when the child is presently
studying in DAV Padmavati Public School, Mania, Tangi, in the
district of Cuttack.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party-husband
submits, the Petitioner No.1, who is the mother guardian of
Petitioner No.2, is also employed as a Block Coordinator in Tangi
Block, Cuttack, through an Outsourcing Agency and is drawing a
gross monthly salary of Rs.16,180/-. Hence, the learned Court
below was justified to award Rs.3000/- towards interim
maintenance. There being no infirmity in the impugned order, the
writ petition be dismissed.
7. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that no
cogent reason has been assigned by the learned Court below while
awarding a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards
interim maintenance in favour of the Petitioner, excepting
3 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of
mentioning in paragraph-4 of the said order as to the alleged
expenses incurred by the Opposite Party-husband, including
payment of EMI of Rs.45,000/- towards repayment of loan availed
for the purpose of construction of his residential building.
7.1. That apart, the learned Court below has also failed to act
in terms of the observations made by the Supreme Court in
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another , reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324
with regard to criterias for determining the quantum of
maintenance, so also the provisions enshrined under Section 25(2)
of the Hindu Marriage Act, while determining the quantum of
maintenance.
8. Law is well settled that repayment of loans incurred for
acquisition of assets, which is a capital investment, should not be
counted towards expenditure while deciding the quantum of
maintenance. Law is also well settled that even if the wife earns, it
would be obligatory on the part of the husband to pay interim
maintenance to enable the wife to maintain her leaving standard at
par with the husband.
9. In T.K. Abdulla Vs. Subaida & Another , reported in 2006
SCC OnLine Ker 686, the Kerala High Court, while considering the
entitlement of a divorced Muslim woman to maintenance under
Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce)
4 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of
Act, 1986, held that the inability of the divorced wife to maintain
herself is not a prerequisite for claiming the amounts provided
under the said provision. The Court observed that, even a
millionaire wife will be entitled to claim maintenance under Section
3 of the Act, 1986 from her billionaire husband and the fact that
she can maintain herself is no bar against any claim under Section
3 of the Act, 1986. The Court further clarified the fact that the
claimant is able to maintain herself “can have no bearing on her
right under Section 3(1)(a), though it may have relevance while
ascertaining the quantum. Thus, the mere fact that the wife
possesses sufficient independent means to maintain herself does
not, by itself, disentitle her from claiming the amounts legally due
under the HMA, 1955.
10. In Deepa Joshi Vs. Gaurav Joshi , reported in 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 597 the Supreme Court held that repayments of loans,
particularly where such repayments result in creation or
acquisition of assets, partake the character of capital investment
and cannot be equated with essential or unavoidable expenditure.
The Court further held that such financial commitments, being
voluntary in nature, cannot be accorded precedence over the
statutory and legally enforceable obligation of maintenance. It was
observed that the obligation of the husband to maintain his spouse
5 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of
is a primary and continuing duty and those deductions on account
of asset-generating repayments cannot be permitted to
substantially dilute the respondent's real earning capacity for the
purpose of determining maintenance. Accordingly, while
determining the quantum of maintenance, deductions towards loan
repayments, particularly those contributing to the creation or
acquisition of assets, cannot be treated as essential or unavoidable
expenditure so as to substantially reduce the husband’s
maintenance liability.
11. So far as the quantum of interim maintenance, the
Supreme Court, in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey
Chowdhury Nee Nandy , reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200, observed
that an amount equivalent to 25% of the net salary of the husband
would be just and proper as maintenance.
12. So far as the monthly income of the Opposite Party-
husband, it is revealed from the Affidavit of Assets and Liabilities
filed by him before the learned Court below, at Annexure-4, under
Para (F), titled “ Details of Income of the Deponent ”, his monthly
income has been stated to be Rs.71,000/-. However, the said
Affidavit does not disclose whether the aforesaid amount represents
his gross income or net income. As is further revealed from Clasue-
5, under Para-F of the said Affidavit, if the deponent is engaged in
6 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of
private sector, he is to furnish a certificate provided by the employer
stating the designation and gross monthly income of such person
and Form No.16 for the relevant period of his current employment.
However, the Opposite Party-husband has not furnished the said
certificate or Form No.16 before the learned Court below.
12.1. Hence, in absence of any specific disclosure as to whether
the stated monthly income of Rs.71,000/- represents his gross or
net income, and in view of his failure to furnish the requisite
employer's certificate and Form No.16, even if the said amount of
Rs.71,000/- is taken to be his net monthly income, still the learned
Court below has awarded a paltry amount of Rs.3,000/- per month
towards interim maintenance.
12.2. That apart, the said Affidavit further discloses that the
Opposite Party-husband had incurred a loan of Rs.40,00, 000/- for
the construction of his residential building and that the monthly
EMI towards repayment of the said loan is Rs.45,000/-.
13. After going through the pleadings, documents on record, the
settled position of law and taking into consideration the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court
is of the view that the impugned order, so far as quantum of
maintenance, deserves interference. Accordingly, the same is
modified. Though a prayer has been made to enhance the interim
7 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of
maintenance to Rs.35,000/-, this Court is of the view that a sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month would be just, fair and reasonable in the
facts of the present case. Accordingly, the interim maintenance is
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-, to be paid from the date of filing of
Section 24 application before the Court below, i.e., w.e.f.
23.08.2024, till disposal of the proceeding.
14. Consequently, it is directed that the arrear differential
maintenance, i.e., after adjusting the maintenance already paid,
shall be paid to Petitioner No.1 in four equal installments within six
weeks hence through any UPI mode or other electronic mode of
money transfer. That apart, the Opposite Party-husband shall
continue to pay the enhanced interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/-
th
per month on or before the 10 day of each succeeding month to
the Petitioner No.1 through RTGS, NEFT, PhonePe, Google Pay or
any other electronic mode of money transfer, until disposal of C.P.
No.813 of 2023 and shall regularly file proof of such payments
before the Court below.
15. At this stage, it is submitted at the Bar that C.P. No.813
of 2023, instituted by the Opposite Party-husband, and C.P. No.192
of 2022 at the instance of the Petitioner-wife are being tried
together and the common trial has substantially progressed.
8 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of
16. Hence, both the parties are directed not to seek for
unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack, who shall do well to conclude both the said
proceedings at the earliest.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent
detailed above and disposed of. No order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of the judgment be granted on
proper application as per rules.
….………..……………
S.K. Mishra, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
.
th
Dated, 13 October, 2026/ Banita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI
Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER
Reason: AUTHENTICATION
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Oct-2026 18:29:12
9 9
W.P.(C) No.14462 of 2025 Page of