Manoranjan Sing vs Pratima Sing
2023 Latest Caselaw 3634 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                RPFAM No. 150 OF 2017
                 Manoranjan Sing                   ....       Petitioner
                                    Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Pratima Sing                            .... Opp. Party
                                               Mr. S.R. Mohapatra, Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

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

2. The Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the judgment dated 6th May, 2017 (Annexure-2) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Cr.P. No.224 of 2016, whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 18th May, 2016.

3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner was unemployed during pendency of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. He has also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal right. Before filing of the objection to defend his case, the impugned order under Annexure-2 has been passed. Hence, the same warrants interference by this Court.

4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that since the marriage between the parties is not disputed and it is also not disputed that the Opposite Party does not have sufficient means to maintain herself, the Petitioner is liable to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. He further submits that the Petitioner in spite of liberty given, preferred not

// 2 //

to file objection and cross-examine the Opposite Party, who was examined as P.W.1. As such, learned Judge, Family Court has committed no error in passing the impugned order under Annexure-2.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner had not filed any objection to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Although the Petitioner was given liberty, he did not prefer to cross- examine the Opposite Party, who was examined as P.W.1. It further appears that the Petitioner preferred not to adduce any evidence in support of his case. Thus, the plea that the Petitioner was unemployed at the time of adjudication of petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not believable. Be that as it may, the Petitioner has to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. Since there is no material on record to come to a conclusion that the Opposite Party has sufficient means to maintain herself, the Petitioner is liable to pay maintenance. Further, the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party, which appears to be just and reasonable. As such, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-2.

6. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

7. Interim order dated 29th March, 2018 passed in Misc. Case No.362 of 2017 stands vacated.

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

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge