Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Pradhan vs Ratnamala Pradhan & Another on 15 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.22 of 2019
Dillip Kumar Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. P.S.Das,
Advocate
-versus-
Ratnamala Pradhan & another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. L.Pradhan,
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE BISWAJIT MOHANTY
ORDER
Order No.
15.12.2021
05. 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
2. This revision application has been filed with a prayer
to set aside the judgment dated 13.11.2018 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani in CRP No. 69 of
2017 by which the learned Court has enhanced the
monthly maintenance from Rs4,000/- to Rs.7,000/- so far
as opposite party No.1 is concerned and from Rs.6,000/- to
Rs.7,000/- so far as opposite party No.2 is concerned.
3. The facts leading for filing of the present revision are
as follows:-
3.1 The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed CRP No. 11 of
2015 before the learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani
praying for payment of maintenance and accordingly the
learned Court granted monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/-
to opposite party No.1 and Rs.6,000/- to opposite party
No.2 vide judgment dated 27.8.2016. Thereafter in 2017 a
petition filed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of
// 2 //
monthly maintenance amount on the ground that the
maintenance awarded was insufficient for their livelihood
as the opposite party No.2 was prosecuting her studies in a
college and they were residing in a rented house. The
opposite parties also took the plea that the present
petitioner is getting salary of Rs.52,000/- by working as a
Health Supervisor under Tangi, PHC besides having extra
income. It was also the case of the opposite parties before
the Court below that the brothers of the petitioner are
Government servants with sufficient income and his own
mother is getting family pension of Rs.14,000/-.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the maintenance amount of
opposite party No.1 be enhanced from Rs.4,000/- to
Rs.10,000/- and that of opposite party No.2 be enhanced
from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.15,000/-.
3.2. The petitioner contested the case by filing a written
statement taking a plea that there is no change in
circumstances for filing a petition under Section 127
Cr.P.C. just after one year of award of maintenance
amount. He also disputed the income figure given by the
opposite parties and also took the plea that he has to take
care of his old mother suffering from various diseases and
opposite party No.1 is earning substantial income running
a medicine shop.
3.3. In order to establish their case, the opposite party
No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and petitioner in order to
establish his defence examined himself as O.P.W.1.
3.4. The learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani after
framing two points for determination and on appreciation of
material on record passed the impugned judgment directing
payment of enhanced monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/-
// 3 //
to each of the opposite parties from November, 2018 on the
grounds of general inflation in the price of consumer goods
for which Government has been sanctioning D.A. to its
employees and implementation of 7th Pay Commission after
the previous order of maintenance. It also took into account
gross salary of the petitioner and the nature of deductions
on account of GPF deposit and advance taken from GPF.
4. Mr.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that there was no occasion for the learned Court below to
pass the impugned order as there has been no change in
the circumstances. Secondly, he contended that though the
petitioner was receiving net salary of Rs.20,961/- out of
gross salary of Rs.36,457/-, the implication of the same
has not been appropriately appreciated by the Court below
while passing the impugned order. Lastly he submitted that
he is incurring heavy expenditure every month on account
of treatment of his mother and this has been ignored by the
Court below. Thus according to him on a wrong
appreciation, the impugned judgment has been passed in
favour of the opposite parties.
5. Mr.Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite parties
strongly defended the impugned judgment and submitted
that the opposite party No.1 has no other source of income
and she is purely dependent on the maintenance amount.
He further reiterated that their daughter is studying in a
College and they are residing in a rented house and since
no body is dependent upon the petitioner and all the
members of his family are self sufficient, therefore the
learned Court below has committed no material irregularity
in pronouncing the judgment in their favour by taking into
account the general inflation, hike of price of consumer
// 4 //
goods and the fact that in the meantime the 7th Pay
Commission has been implemented. He also submitted that
the petitioner has not exhibited any medical bills to prove
the expenditure incurred by him on account of treatment of
his mother who herself is getting family pension.
6. Heard Mr.P.S.Das, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.L.Pradhan, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
7. The first submission of Mr.Das that there has been
no change of circumstances and therefore the original order
awarding maintenance on 27.8.2016 passed in CRP No. 11
of 2015 should not have been altered cannot be accepted as
on query by the Court, Mr.Das has not disputed that after
passing of the above noted order dated 27.8.2016, the 7th
Pay Commission has been implemented and further on
account of general inflation resulting in hike of price of
consumer goods, the Government has sanctioned D.A. In
such background, the Court is not willing to accept the first
submission of Mr.Das. So far as his second submission
with regard to less quantum of net income of the petitioner,
it may be noted here that the receipt of less net salary is on
account of deduction of Rs.5000/- per month towards GPF
and other similar major monthly deduction of Rs.9600/- is
on account of GPF advances taken by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court below on this has remained
unchallenged. Since the nature of these deductions are in
the nature of savings, plea relating to the same cannot be
taken to deprive the opposite parties of higher
maintenance. It may further be noted that no document
relating to treatment of the mother of the petitioner or the
expenditure incurred on the same has been exhibited on
behalf of the petitioner before the learned Court below to
// 5 //
prove all these things. It is also not disputed that mother is
also getting family pension and the petitioner has admitted
that his daughter is going to College in Scooty and girl
students need more expenses. In such background, this
Court does not find any impropriety or illegality in passing
of the impugned order enhancing the maintenance.
8. Accordingly the revision petition is without any merit
and the same is dismissed.
( Biswajit Mohanty)
Judge
Kishore
