Orissa High Court
Mamatarani Guru @ Das And Another vs Braja Kishore Das on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.227 of 2022
Mamatarani Guru @ Das and another .... Petitioners
Mr. Digambara Sethi, Advocate
-versus-
Braja Kishore Das .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 06.12.2022
2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Petitioners in this RPFAM seek to assail the judgment
and order dated 9th August, 2022 (Annexure-5) passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Criminal Proceeding
No.201 of 2012, whereby entertaining an application under
Section 127 Cr.P.C., the Opposite Party has been directed to pay
Rs.6,000/- per month to the Petitioner No.1 and Rs.4,000/- per
month to Petitioner No.2 from the date of order, i.e., 9th August,
2022.
3. By order dated 22nd November, 2022, this Court directed
learned counsel for the Petitioners to take instruction as to
whether the Opposite Party has filed any RPFAM assailing the
order impugned herein. On instruction, Mr. Sethi, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submits that accepting the impugned
order, the Opposite Party is paying the maintenance to the
Petitioners regularly at the enhanced rate.
// 2 //
3.1 It is his submission that the maintenance awarded is not
sufficient taking into consideration the need of the Petitioners. It
is also not proportionate to the enhancement of the salary of the
Opposite Party. Referring to the examination in-chief of PW-1
(PetitionerNo.1), Mr. Sethi, learned counsel submits that the
Petitioner No.2 is reading in Std.VII of Odisha Adarsha
Vidyalay, Korei, Jajpur, which is at a distance of twenty
kilometers from the house of the Petitioners. There is no hostel
facility for which the Petitioner No.1 has to bear a conveyance
expenses of Rs.3,000/- per month. In addition to the above, the
tutorial class expenses of Petitioner No.2 is Rs.2,000/- per
month along with other study expenses. Petitioners are also
staying in a rented house and paying rent Rs.1,500/- per month.
These aspects ought to have been taken into consideration while
adjudicating the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C. A sum of
Rs.2,500/- and Rs.1,500/- towards maintenance of Petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 respectively was directed to be paid by the
Opposite party when his income was Rs.13,000/- per month. At
present, the income of the Opposite Party is Rs.58,819/- per
month. Hence, the quantum of maintenance should have been
enhanced accordingly keeping in mind the cost of living, need
of the Petitioners and increase in the salary of the Opposite
Party.
4. Taking into consideration the submissions made by
learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of the
impugned order, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court,
Jajpur has taken into consideration the enhancement of the
salary of the Opposite Party, but along with increase in the
// 3 //
expenses of the Petitioners, the expenses of the Opposite Party
has also enhanced proportionately. At para-9 of the impugned
order, learned Judge, Family Curt has stated that the Opposite
Party is spending Rs.15,000/- per month towards his
conveyance to his work place, as he has to stay with his old
ailing parents. Thus, it appears that even if the salary of the
Opposite Party has increased but his expenses also got increased
manifold.
5. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the
parties, striking a balance between the status of the parties, their
need and the salary of the Opposite Party, learned Judge, Family
Court has increased the maintenance amount of Petitioner No.1
from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.6,000/- per month and Petitioner No.2
from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. Thus, I find no ground
for interference in the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit
stands dismissed.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
