Ranjitarani Sahu And Another vs Sachidananda Sahu
2023 Latest Caselaw 3784 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 81 OF 2017
                 Ranjitarani Sahu and another          ....      Petitioners
                                         Miss Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate
                                         -versus-
                 Sachidananda Sahu                          .... Opp. Party
                                             Mr. Sidharth Prasad Das, Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                          ORDER

Order No.                                19.04.2023
   4.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 30th January, 2017 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in Criminal Proceeding No.105 of 2015 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to Petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to Petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 5th June, 2015.

3. Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that during relevant period, the Opposite Party was a Government servant and was drawing a salary of Rs.15,985/- per month. His take home salary was Rs.14,299/- per month. Although by an interim order dated 27th April, 2016 under Annexure-3, the Opposite Party was directed to pay the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to Petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to Petitioner No.2, but in the final judgment, the same has been reduced as stated above. It is her submission that the Opposite Party has sufficient means to provide maintenance at a higher rate. As such, the impugned order under Annexure-5 warrants interference by enhancing the monthly maintenance.

// 2 //

4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that during pendency of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an F.I.R. was lodged by Petitioner No.1 under Section 498-A I.P.C. along with allied offences, for which the Opposite Party was put under suspension. During the relevant period, he was serving as a Junior Clerk. Due to the order of suspension, he had no sufficient means to maintain himself. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court has committed no error in granting the maintenance, as aforesaid.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the gross salary of the Opposite Party during the relevant period was Rs.15,985/- per month and his take home salary was Rs.14,299/- per month. In view of the ratio decided in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury -v- Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200, it is held that estranged wife is entitled to get maintenance of up to 1/4th of the income of the husband. Since the Opposite Party is parting with a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance of the Petitioners, this Court feels that it is reasonable by taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-5 warrants no interference.

6. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

7. It is, however, open to the Petitioners to pray for enhancement of the maintenance amount, if there is any change in circumstances.

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

                                         (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                             Judge