Sujata Biswal vs Mihir Kumar Swain
2023 Latest Caselaw 3627 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 161 OF 2017
                 Sujata Biswal                           ....       Petitioner
                                       Mr. Darpa Narayan Pattnaik, Advocate
                                   on behalf of Mr. Ramdas Achary, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Mihir Kumar Swain                       .... Opp. Party
                                               Mr. S.K. Bhanjadeo, Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             18.04.2023
   3.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 10th May, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.R.P. No.158 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.3,900/- per month to the Petitioner from the date of filing of the interim application, i.e., from 6th April, 2017 along with litigation expenses of Rs.3,500/-.

3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Achary, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the monthly salary of the Opposite Party during the relevant period was Rs.45,000/- per month and he was also receiving Rs.6,00,000/- per annum from his landed properties. Thus, the Opposite Party should have been paid the maintenance at an enhanced rate. He, therefore, prays for enhancement of the interim maintenance.

4. Mr. Bhanjadeo, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that he has no instruction in the matter.

// 2 //

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the order impugned herein is interim in nature and was passed on 10th May, 2017 i.e., more than five and half years back. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-1. It is more so, because the order impugned herein shall be subject to the result of the final order/judgment to be passed in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

6. The RPFAM is accordingly disposed of without interfering with the impugned order under Annexure-1.

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

                                       (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                           Judge