Orissa High Court
Paresh Kumar Parichha vs Anita Kumari Parichha on 15 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 5978 of 2022
Paresh Kumar Parichha ..... Petitioner
Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate
-versus-
Anita Kumari Parichha .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 15.03.2022
2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to challenge the
order dated 10th December, 2021 (Annexure-1) passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Parlakhemundi in Execution
Petition No.8 of 2014.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
learned Civil Judge Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in MJC
No.16 of 2002 filed by the decree holders (wife and child of the
Petitioner), awarded a monthly maintenance of Rs.1,000/-
under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 vide his
order dated 11th October, 2002. Subsequently, MAT Case
No.25 of 2012 was filed for enhancement of the maintenance.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil
Judge Senior Division), Parlakhemundi, vide judgment dated
22nd April, 2013 enhanced the amount by Rs.5,000/- per month
over and above the maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month
already awarded vide MJC No.16 of 2002. Said order was
carried in appeal in MAT Appeal No.4 of 2013 before the
learned District Judge, Parlakhemundi, who upheld the order
// 2 //
passed in MAT Case No.25 of 2012. Thereafter, the present
Petitioner filed RSA No.130 of 2014, which was dismissed vide
order dated 8th April, 2021. Accordingly, the decree holders
filed Execution Petition No.8 of 2014 for realization of
Rs.1,12,000/- towards arrear maintenance. Vide order dated 10th
December, 2021, learned Judge, Family Court, Parlakhemundi
at Gajapati directed the present Petitioner to pay the amount of
Rs.1,12,000/- by 20th December, 2021. Assailing the said order,
the Petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. It is contended by Mr. Das, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that in MAT Case No.25 of 2012, the maintenance
was enhanced to Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the executing Court
committed error in calculating maintenance at Rs.6,000/- per
month. The Executing Court probably included the
maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month awarded earlier in MJC
No.16 of 2002. It is his submission that by virtue of order dated
22nd April, 2013 passed in MAT Case No.25 of 2012, the order
passed in MJC No.16 of 2002 merged with the same. As such,
the decree holders are entitled to maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per
month and not Rs.6,000/- per month, as calculated by the
executing Court. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned
order under Annexure-1 passed by learned Judge, Family
Court, Parlakhemundi in Execution Petition No.8 of 2014.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on
perusal of the impugned order, it appears that earlier learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi has awarded a
sum of Rs.1,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act in MJC No.16 of 2002. Subsequently, on an
application filed by the decree holders in MAT Case No.35 of
// 3 //
2012, the said amount was enhanced by Rs.5,000/- per month,
which means the decree holders are entitled to a further sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month over and above Rs.1,000/- per month
already awarded in MJC No.16 of 2002. This fact has already
been clearly indicated in the impugned order dated 10th
December, 2021 passed in Execution Petition No.8 of 2014. It
further appears that such a plea was neither taken in MAT
Appeal No.4 of 2013 nor in RSA No.130 of 2014, as fairly
admitted by Mr. Das, learned counsel in the present writ
petition. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the
impugned order under Annexure-1 passed in Execution Petition
No.8 of 2014.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails being devoid of any
merit and as such the same is dismissed.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
