Balaram Harijan vs Ratni Harijan
2023 Latest Caselaw 3165 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 44 OF 2022
                 Balaram Harijan                         ....      Petitioner
                                          Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Advocate

                                          -versus-
                 Ratni Harijan                             ....    Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            11.04.2023
   2.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 9th February, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur in Cr.P. No.1 of 2020 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of the application, i.e., from 6th January, 2020 along with litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Dwibedi, learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the relationship between the parties is not disputed, but the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home voluntarily leaving behind the Petitioner along with three children. Although the children are staying with the Petitioner, but the Opposite Party by impleading them as parties to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claimed maintenance for all of them. The plea of the Opposite Party for leaving the matrimonial home was that the Petitioner has kept illicit relationship with a lady, namely, Banita Harijan. Learned Judge, Family Court disbelieved such plea. Further the son of the Petitioner, who was impleaded as Petitioner No.2 in the petition

// 2 //

under Section 125 Cr.P.C. also deposed in Court that the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home voluntarily. These material aspects although referred to, but did not weigh in the mind of learned Judge, Family Court while adjudicating the matter. He further submits that quantum of maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month is unreasonable and excessive. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment under Annexure-

1.

4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the impugned judgment under Annexure-1, it appears that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the Opposite Party impleading the children as Petitioner Nos.2 to 4. Admittedly, they are staying with the present Petitioner. The Opposite Party took a plea that although the children were staying with her at the time of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but the Petitioner forcibly took away the children from her during pendency of the proceeding. Such a plea was, however, not believed by learned Judge, Family Court. It is also deposed by the son of the Petitioner, namely, Parsuram @ Biju Harijan that her mother left the matrimonial home voluntarily. She was examined as a witness on behalf of the present Petitioner as O.P.W.2. On perusal of the cause title, it appears that he was ten years old at the time of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. It is not known under what circumstance, a child witness was examined by the Petitioner in support of his case. The Opposite Party, however, took a stand that due to illicit relationship of the Petitioner with one Banita Harijan. She protested the same, for which she was ill-treated by the family members of the

// 3 //

Petitioner. Although learned Judge, Family Court disbelieved the plea of illicit relationship of the Petitioner with the said lady, but taking into consideration the plea of the Opposite Party that she was ill-treated by the family members of the Petitioner, for which she left the matrimonial home, was believed. On that basis, learned Judge, Family Court rejected the plea of the Petitioner to the effect that the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home voluntarily.

5. Learned Judge, Family Court on assessment of evidence, came to a categorical conclusion that the Opposite Party has left the matrimonial home due to ill-treatment of the family members of the Petitioner. Since this Court is in seisin of a revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which is in the nature of 397 (1) Cr.P.C., I am not inclined to interfere with the same only because on assessment of evidence, a second view may be possible.

6. It further appears from the record that the Petitioner has not adduced any evidence with regard to his income. Thus, on the basis of the materials available on record, learned Judge, Family Court fixed the quantum of maintenance at Rs.2,000/- per month, which is not unreasonable.

7. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment under Annexure-1.

8. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

                                         (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                             Judge