Shivaji Rathore 16-04-2026
In a significant ruling reinforcing the social welfare objective of maintenance laws, the Orissa High Court has held that a decree of divorce granted on the ground of desertion does not automatically disentitle a wife from claiming post-divorce maintenance. The Court clarified that even after dissolution of marriage, a divorced woman continues to fall within the definition of “wife” for the limited purpose of claiming maintenance under the statutory framework.
Justice Dr. Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, while deciding the matter, emphasized that under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which corresponds to Section 125 CrPC, a divorced woman who has not remarried is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court categorically rejected the argument that desertion by the wife, which led to divorce, creates a statutory bar to such claim.
The Court observed that the legal position is well-settled through precedents of the Supreme Court that desertion as a ground for divorce cannot, by itself, defeat a claim for maintenance after divorce.
The dispute arose from a long-standing matrimonial conflict between the parties who were married in 2003. The wife allegedly left the matrimonial home shortly after marriage. The husband initiated divorce proceedings, during which the wife was granted interim maintenance. Due to non-compliance by the husband, his pleadings were struck off, and the divorce petition was initially dismissed.
Subsequently, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC and was awarded maintenance of ₹20,000 per month. This order was upheld by the High Court in 2022. Later, in matrimonial appeals, the High Court granted divorce to the husband in 2023 on the ground of desertion and observed that the amounts already paid would constitute permanent alimony.
Following the divorce decree, the husband stopped paying monthly maintenance, prompting the wife to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) for post-divorce maintenance. The husband challenged the maintainability of these proceedings before the High Court.
The primary questions before the Court were whether a divorce on the ground of desertion bars post-divorce maintenance under Section 125(4) CrPC/Section 144(4) BNSS, and whether the earlier observation regarding permanent alimony automatically extinguishes the existing maintenance order.
Answering these issues, the Court held that the statutory bar under Section 125(4) applies only during the subsistence of marriage and cannot be extended to defeat the rights of a divorced wife. It reiterated that once the marital relationship ceases, the obligation of maintenance survives subject to statutory conditions.
On the issue of permanent alimony, the Court clarified that the observation made in matrimonial proceedings does not automatically nullify an earlier maintenance order. Whether such payments satisfy or extinguish the maintenance obligation is a matter that must be adjudicated by the competent court based on evidence and statutory provisions.
The Court further held that such disputes involving adjustment, satisfaction, or variation of maintenance must be decided through the appropriate statutory mechanism, particularly under Section 127 CrPC or Section 146 BNSS, rather than being prematurely quashed under inherent jurisdiction.
Refusing to interfere at the threshold, the Court observed that maintenance provisions are a measure of social justice aimed at preventing destitution and must be interpreted in that spirit. It emphasized that questions regarding continuation or modification of maintenance require factual examination and cannot be decided in a summary manner.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the husband’s petition and granted him liberty to approach the Family Court for cancellation or variation of the maintenance order. The Family Court was directed to adjudicate the matter expeditiously after hearing both parties.
Case Details:
Case Title: Dr. Deepak Padhi v. Gayatri Panda
Case No.: CRLMC No. 3213 of 2025
Court: Orissa High Court
Date of Judgment: March 31, 2026
Bench: Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party: Mr. Bhawani Shankar Panigrahi, Advocate
