Orissa High Court
Md. Arman vs Reshma Khatoon on 4 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO. 108 OF 2021
Md. Arman .... Petitioner
Mr. Soumya Ranjan Das, Advocate
-versus-
Reshma Khatoon .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 04.03.2022
3. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This RPFAM has been filed assailing the judgment and order
dated 24th November, 2021 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Rourkela in C.P.No.7 of 2020, whereby the Petitioner
has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the
Opposite Party-Wife and her son towards maintenance from the date
of application, i.e. from 12th February, 2020, in the first week of
every month according to English calendar and also to pay arrear
maintenance within three months from the date of the said order in
three equal installments.
3. Although notice has been made sufficient on the Opposite
Party, but none has entered appearance on her behalf. Considering
the same, this Court vide order dated 14th February, 2022 directed
the office to verify as to whether any counsel has entered appearance
on behalf of Opposite Party and to indicate the name of learned
counsel. But, the Registry pointed out that none has entered
appearance on behalf of the sole Opposite Party.
// 2 //
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
Petitioner was serving at Dubai and was earning Rs.30,000/- to
Rs.35,000/- per month in terms of the Indian currency. With that
salary, he was managing himself at Dubai and was maintaining his
wife and old parents. After outbreak of COVID-19, he returned to
India and the Company at Dubai has removed him from service. At
present, the Petitioner does not have any income. Referring to the
deposition of the Petitioner annexed to the petition as Annexure-3,
he submits that these material aspects were not taken into
consideration by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela while
passing the impugned order.
5. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned
Judge, Family Court, Rourkela has taken into consideration the fact
that the Petitioner was receiving Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- towards
his salary and on that basis, directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to the Opposite Party.
But, the positive evidence to the effect that he has already lost his
job, has not been taken into consideration along with other materials
available on record.
6. The Petitioner being the husband of Opposite Party is under
obligation to maintain her. While considering the quantum of
maintenance, the dependency of his parents on the Petitioner is also
a factor to be considered. It appears that learned Judge, Family
Court, Rourkela has not taken into consideration these material
aspects while passing the impugned order. Thus, the impugned
order is not sustainable. Since sufficient material is not available on
record, this Court is not in a position to give a definite opinion on
the quantum of maintenance.
// 3 //
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned order under
Annexure-1 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela to adjudicate the matter
afresh taking into consideration the materials available on record. It
is, however, directed that the Petitioner shall go on paying a sum of
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the Opposite Party-Wife
per month till disposal of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in
C.P. No. 7 of 2020.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the RPFAM is
disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
bks
