The case traces its origins to a marriage solemnized in December 2003.

The relationship broke down almost immediately, with the wife leaving the matrimonial home within weeks.

What followed was a prolonged legal battle spanning nearly two decades, involving divorce proceedings, restitution claims, and maintenance litigation.

In 2015, the Family Court at Berhampur awarded the wife monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- under Section 125 CrPC. This order attained finality when it was upheld by the High Court in 2022.

The matrimonial dispute took a turn in November 2023 when the High Court granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband on the ground of desertion.

The Court observed that the amounts already paid by the husband would be treated as permanent alimony.

The wife took the case to the Supreme Court of India, but the challenge was restricted to payment matters.

In August 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed the proceedings without altering the findings of the High Court. It later, directed payment of an additional Rs.3 lakh and granted liberty to the parties to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.

The present dispute arose when the wife alleged that despite the subsisting maintenance order, the husband stopped paying Rs.20,000 per month after the divorce judgment. She turned to the Family Court to enforce it, and the husband appealed to High Court to quash those proceedings.

The case of the husband was based on the fact that the financial relationship between the two parties was already final.It was argued that once the High Court granted divorce and treated prior payments as permanent alimony, no further maintenance claim could survive.

According to him, the earlier maintenance order effectively merged into the matrimonial adjudication and stood extinguished.

Reliance was placed on Rakesh Malhotra v. Krishna Malhotra to argue that once permanent alimony is determined, any further claim must be pursued within the framework of the Hindu Marriage Act and not through parallel proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

The husband further argued that the wife’s attempt to revive maintenance proceedings amounted to an abuse of process, as it sought to reopen issues already settled by superior courts.

The wife argued that the petition was premature since the Family Court had merely issued notice and had not passed any adverse order.

she maintained that the maintenance order passed in 2015 and affirmed in 2022 remained valid and enforceable. She stressed that neither the divorce decree nor subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court had set aside or modified that order.The wife argued that even after divorce, a woman continues to be entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, and the statutory bar under Section 125(4) does not apply once the marriage is dissolved.

The high court observed that Section 125 CrPC, now reflected in Section 144 BNSS, is a measure of social justice designed to prevent destitution and vagrancy. As such, it must be interpreted liberally in favour of those it seeks to protect.Rejecting the husband’s reliance on the ground of desertion, the Court turned to settled precedent of the Supreme Court of India.

The Court further approved the principle that even where divorce is granted on the ground of desertion, such desertion is not a bar to post-divorce maintenance.

The Court relied on Dr. Swapan Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal, where the Supreme Court held:“The husband cannot urge that he can divorce his wife on the ground that she has deserted him and then deny maintenance… on the ground that even after divorce she is not willing to live with him.”

The central issue, however, was whether the earlier maintenance order stood extinguished because the High Court had observed that prior payments would constitute permanent alimony.

The Court emphasized that the wife was not seeking parallel relief but enforcement of an existing order.

It observed that the wife was relying on a subsisting maintenance order, while the husband was raising a defence based on subsequent developments. Such a contest, the Court held, must be resolved by the Family Court.

While dismissing the petition, the Court acknowledged the prolonged nature of the litigation and the need for finality.

It granted liberty to the husband to file an application before the Family Court seeking cancellation or variation of the maintenance order. The Family Court was directed to consider both the wife’s enforcement proceedings and any such application together and dispose of them expeditiously.The Court also expressed the expectation that both parties would cooperate and avoid unnecessary delays, given the long history of disputes between them.

Ultimately holding that a decree of divorce and an observation treating prior payments as permanent alimony do not automatically extinguish a subsisting maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC. The issue as to whether these payments meet or extinguish the obligation shall be considered by the competent court in the statutory framework.

Finding no ground to exercise inherent jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the petition and permitted the proceedings before the Family Court to continue in accordance with law.CRLMC No.3213 of 2025Dr. Deepak Padhi vs Gayatri Panda