Orissa High Court
Md. Nazir vs Yasmin Bano on 8 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO. 11 OF 2013
Md. Nazir .... Petitioner
Mr. Pravat Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Yasmin Bano .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 08.07.2022
5. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This RPFAM has been filed assailing the order dated 19th
January, 2013 passed in C.M.C. No. 184/398 of 2012, whereby
learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur directed the Petitioner to
pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the Opposite Party and Rs.750/- to each
of the minor children from the date of application, i.e. on 19th June,
2012.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that the Petitioner is an Auto driver and he has filed the income
certificate vide Ext.C issued by the Tahasildar, Sambalpur on 15th
December, 2012 showing his annual income to be Rs.36,000/- as a
driver. He, therefore, submits that since the monthly income of the
Petitioner at the relevant time was Rs.3,000/- per month, direction
for payment of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party is
illegal and is not sustainable. He, therefore, prays for setting aside
the impugned order and to reduce the maintenance amount.
4. Although the sole Opposite Party is being represented
through her learned counsel, no one appears on her behalf at the
time of hearing of the RPFAM.
// 2 //
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on
perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner has filed Ext.C
in support of his income in which the Tahasildar, Sambalpur has
stated that his annual income is Rs.36,000/- as a driver. Although
it is claimed by the Opposite Party that the Petitioner is a Mini
Truck driver and earns about Rs.1500/- per day, but she could not
file any cogent evidence in support of her case. The materials
available on record do not disclose as to under circumstances the
Tahasildar, Sambalpur issued a certificate showing the annual
income of the Petitioner to be Rs.36,000/-. Admittedly, the
Opposite Party is the wife of the Petitioner and they were blessed
with two children. Further, there is no material on record to come
to a conclusion that the Opposite Party has any source of income.
Thus, the Petitioner is liable to maintain her.
6. This Court vide order dated 7th May, 2013 while issuing
notice in the matter directed stay of the judgment dated 19th
January, 2013 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 184/398 of 2012
subject to the Petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
arrear maintenance before learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur
by 18th June, 2013 and continuing to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- per
month to the Opposite Party and her children from the month of
July, 2013. The said order is continuing till date.
7. It further appears from the case record that due to non-
compliance of the interim order dated 7th May, 2013 passed by this
Court, D.W. was issued against the Petitioner in Execution Case
No. 26 of 2013. However, vide order dated 25th July, 2019, this
Court directed the Petitioner to hand over a cheque amounting to
Rs.30,000/- drawn in favour of Opposite Party. Learned counsel
submits that the Petitioner has complied with the same.
// 3 //
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that a sum of Rs.750/- per month to each of the minor children is
not excessive and requires no interference. However, taking into
consideration the fact that the Petitioner is an Auto driver, this
Court feels that the Petitioner should pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per
month to the Opposite Party towards her maintenance.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner shall pay a
sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) per month to the
Opposite Party towards maintenance and also pay Rs.750/- per
month to each of the children from the date of application, i.e. on
19th June, 2012.
10. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned order, the
RPFAM is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
bks
