Loknath Sardar vs Bijaylaxmi Patra And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3571 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  RPFAM No. 71 OF 2017
                 Loknath Sardar                          ....      Petitioner
                                       Mr. Gopal Krushna Mohanty, Advocate
                                             -versus-
                 Bijaylaxmi Patra and another                 ....     Opp. Parties


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              17.04.2023
   2.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 19th January, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Criminal Proceeding No.640 of 2011 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.1 (wife) and Rs.1,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 (minor son) with effect from the date of the application, i.e., from 28th November, 2011.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner raised two points for consideration of this Court to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-1. Firstly, he submitted that Opposite Party No.1 (wife) left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason. Secondly, he argued that the Petitioner is a daily wage earner and is unable to pay the maintenance, as directed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jajpur.

4. On perusal of the record, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court on consideration of materials on record framed three points for consideration, i.e.-

"i) Whether the O.P. having sufficient means has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioners?

// 2 //

ii) Whether the petitioners are unable to maintain themselves?

iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to maintenance from O.P., if so, to what amount?"

5. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner has not raised any issue to the effect that Opposite Party No.1 left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. Thus, it is not available to be considered in the present RPFAM, which is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

6. So far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, it appears that the Petitioner had taken a plea that he is working as a labourer. Thus, considering the materials on record, learned trial Court held that income of the Petitioner would be around Rs.6,000/- per month. It is also held that the Opposite Parties have no sufficient means to maintain themselves. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court has committed no error in directing the Petitioner to pay the maintenance, as aforesaid.

7. Further on perusal of the record, it appears that although the matter was filed on 8th March, 2017, but no step thereafter was taken either to remove the defects in filing the RPFAM or to get the matter listed for admission. In the meantime, more than six years have already elapsed.

8. In view of the discussion made above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-1.

9. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

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

                                         (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                             Judge