Karesh Jatri vs Paris Jatri
2023 Latest Caselaw 3179 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No.33 of 2017
                 Karesh Jatri                              ....       Petitioner
                                                      Mr. S.K.Baral, Advocate
                             on behalf of Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sahoo, Advocate
                                            -versus-
                 Paris Jatri                               ....      Opp. Party
                                                                         None
                             CORAM:
                            JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

                                       ORDER

Order No.                             11.04.2023
3.          1.       This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 28th November, 2016 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jeypore in Criminal Proceeding No.76 of 2015 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 filing of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

3. Mr. Baral, learned counsel being authorized by learned counsel, Mr. Sahoo for the Petitioner, submits that the impugned order is vulnerable on two counts; firstly, that the Opposite Party is not the legally married wife of the Petitioner and secondly the quantum of maintenance determined by learned Family Court is excessive.

4. However, in course of hearing, it is found that the Petitioner had neither filed any objection to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. nor led any evidence in support of his case. He only cross-examined the witnesses of the Opposite Party-

// 2 //

Wife. On a close scrutiny of the impugned order, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court on assessment of materials on record held that the Petitioner and Opposite Party were living as husband and wife under one roof. Since there is no denial to the allegations made in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner by filing objection and leading evidence to that effect, the allegations made in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. went uncontroverted.

4.1 Thus, learned Judge, Family Court basing upon the materials on record arrived at the conclusion that the Opposite party is entitled for maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of application, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.

5. Accordingly, the RPFAM is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy