Orissa High Court
Rasid Khan vs Salman Ahamed on 13 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 70 OF 2017
Rasid Khan .... Petitioner
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Salman Ahamed .... Opp. Party
Mr. Shashi Bhusan Jena, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 13.04.2023
RPFAM No. 70 OF 2017
& RPFAM No. 188 OF 2017
4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 28th January, 2017 passed by learned
Judge, Family Court, Khurda in Criminal Petition No.256 of
2016 is under challenge in both the RPFAMs, whereby the
Petitioner in RPFAM No.70 of 2017 has been directed to pay
maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the Opposite Party
(minor son) from the date of application, i.e., from 6th
September, 2016.
3. The minor son (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.256 of
2016) is the Petitioner in RPFAM No.188 of 2017 claiming
enhancement of the maintenance in the aforesaid order.
4. Leaned counsel for the parties made a lengthy argument
on the merit of the order. In one hand, Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel for the Petitioner (in RPFAM No.70 of 2017) submits
that the quantum of maintenance is excessive whereas, Mr. Jena,
learned counsel for the minor son submits that the same warrants
enhancement.
5. In course of hearing, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner (in RPFAM No.70 of 2017) draws attention of this
Court to the affidavit filed by the Petitioner in RPFAM No.70 of
2017 disclosing that after dissolution of marriage between the
// 2 //
parties by divorce, his wife filed an FIR, which was registered as
Jatni P.S. Case No.271 dated 14th July, 2017 under Sections
498A/323/294/506/34 IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act.
In the said case, the Petitioner (in RPFAM No.70 of 2017) was
arrested in presence of the Bank staff where he was serving. Out
of humiliation, he could not continue in his service and tendered
his resignation. Thereafter, with much difficulty, he got a job in
Indusind Bank at Chhattisgarh at a lower salary of Rs.41,990/-
per month. There are also subsequent changes in circumstance,
which warrants variation in the order of maintenance. In spite of
the aforesaid difficulties, the Petitioner (in RPFAM No.70 of
2017) has never neglected to pay the maintenance to his minor
son (Petitioner in RPFAM No.188 of 2017) even for a month. In
view of the above, he submits that interest of justice will be best
served, if an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is filed for
variation of the order of maintenance in view of the change in
circumstance.
6. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the minor son prays for
withdrawal of the RPFAM No.188 of 2017 submitting that the
minor son may also file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.
for variation of the maintenance.
7. In view of the submission made above, this Court without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the order impugned in
both the RPFAMs, disposes of the same with an observation that
if any application(s) under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is/are filed by
either of the parties, the same shall be considered in accordance
with law giving opportunity of hearing of the parties concerned.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
