Orissa High Court
Jagabandhu Digal vs Ranjeeta Digal And Others on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.275 of 2018
Jagabandhu Digal .... Petitioners
Mr.Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. Ramdas Achary, Advocate
-versus-
Ranjeeta Digal and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr.Jagannath Bhuyan, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 06.12.2022
2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the judgment
and order dated 11th October, 2018 (Annexure-2) passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani in Criminal Proceeding
No.27 of 2018, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to Opposite
party No.1 and Rs.3,000/- per month to each of Opposite Party
Nos.2 and 3 from the date of application, i.e., 16th March, 2018
till 31st July, 2018 and thereafter maintenance at the rate of
Rs.6,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per month to
each of Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 from August, 2018
onwards.
3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel being authorized by Mr.
Achary, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that relation
between the parties is not disputed. Opposite Parties are staying
in the official quarters of the Petitioner. At the time of filing of
// 2 //
the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner was
working as Junior Clerk and his take-home salary was
rs.18,454/- per month. As the Opposite Parties are occupying his
official quarters, the Petitioner is staying in a rented house. He
also looks after his old parents. Thus, it is very difficult on the
part of the Petitioner to pay maintenance at the aforesaid rate.
4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for
the Petitioner, this Court, while issuing notice in the matter, vide
order dated 15th April, 2019, as an interim measure, directed the
Petitioner to pay Rs.7,500/- to Opposite Party No.1, which he
has been paying regularly except for two months because of
illness of his mother. He, however, submits that the Petitioner
will pay the said amount with a month.
5. It is his submission that learned Judge, Family Court,
while determining the quantum of maintenance, did not at all
take into consideration the requirements of obligation of the
Petitioner and directed him to pay the maintenance, which is
almost his entire take-home salary. Thus, the impugned order is
not sustainable and the quantum of maintenance requires
reconsideration.
6. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for Opposite Parties
submits that as Junior Clerk, the take-home salary of the
Petitioner was Rs.18,454/- per month at the relevant time, but
during pendency of the proceeding, he was promoted to the
cadre of Senior Clerk. Taking into consideration the same,
learned Judge, Family Court has determined the quantum of
maintenance accordingly. It is his submission that the Petitioner
did not disclose his salary as Senior Clerk. Hence, learned
// 3 //
Judge, Family Court had to make guess work while determining
the quantum of maintenance. He also files a copy of the salary
particulars of the Petitioner from May, 2019 to May, 2020,
which discloses that during May, 2020, the gross salary of the
Petitioner was Rs.30,771/- per month. However, the Petitioner
having taken festival advance a major portion of his salary was
being deducted. Hence, learned trial Court has committed no
error in passing the impugned order.
7. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for
the parties, this Court finds that the take-home salary of the
Petitioner as Junior Clerk was Rs.18,454/- per month. But it is
admitted by learned counsel for the parties that during pendency
of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner was
promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. In all fairness, the
Petitioner should have disclosed his salary in the promotional
post for determination of just maintenance to Opposite Parties.
It is also not disputed that Opposite Party No.1-wife has no
independent source of income. Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3, the
children who are pursuing their studies in +2 at Women's
College, Phulbani and Saraswati Sishu Mandir respectively.
Thus, the Petitioner has to bear the study as well as other
expenses of his children.
7.1 Considering the matter in toto, and keeping in mind the
status of the parties and their respective needs, this Court finds a
sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, i.e., Rs.4,000/- per month to
Opposite Party No.1-wife and Rs.3,000/- per month each to
Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 as maintenance from the date of
application would be just and proper.
// 4 //
8. Accordingly, the RRPFAM is disposed of with a
direction that the Petitioner shall pay Rs.4,000/- per month to
Opposite Party No.1-wife and Rs.3,000/- per month each to
Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 (children) as maintenance from the
date of application, i.e., 16th March, 2018. The impugned order
is accordingly modified to the above extent.
9. Interim order dated 15th April, 2019 passed in IA
No.421 of 2018 stands vacated.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
