Madhusmita Mohanty And Another vs Chintamani Mohanty
2023 Latest Caselaw 3904 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 169 OF 2017
                 Madhusmita Mohanty and another      ....     Petitioners
                                       Mr. Sidheswar Mohanty, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Chintamani Mohanty                       .... Opp. Party
                                                 Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                ORDER

Order No.                      20.04.2023
             RPFAM No. 169 OF 2017
             & RPFAM No. 154 OF 2017
   5.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Appearance memo filed by Mr. Sidheswar Mohanty, learned counsel and his associates on behalf of the Petitioners (in C.R.P. No.58 of 2016) is taken on record.

3. Both the RPFAMs have been filed assailing the interim order dated 24th April, 2017 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in C.R.P. No.58 of 2016, whereby the man has been directed to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.3,300/- per month to each of his wife and child from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 16th March, 2016.

4. In RPFAM No.154 of 2017, the man assails the quantum of maintenance to be excessive and in RPFAM No.169 of 2017, wife and child prays of enhancement of the interim maintenance. For convenience of discussion, the parties are described as per their status before learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar.

5. The Petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the Opposite Party. An interim

// 2 //

application was also filed claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the Petitioner No.1 (Wife) and Rs.5,000/- per month to Petitioner No.2 (Child). Learned Judge, Family Court considering the matter, directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,300/- per month as interim maintenance to each of the Petitioners from the date of interim application dated 16th March, 2016.

6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party is working as a Asst. Mechanic in East Coast Railways and is earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Thus, a meager amount of maintenance of Rs.3,300/- per month to each of the Petitioners is very low in comparison to the salary of the Opposite Party as well as their need. Hence, it requires enhancement.

7. It is his submission that while entertaining an interim application in RPFAM No.154 of 2017, this Court vide order dated 19th July, 2019 directed that on depositing of a sum of Rs.15,000/- before learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar within six weeks from the date of the order and on payment of Rs.3,500/- per month to Petitioner No.1, the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance. Of course, the Opposite Party is paying the said amount regularly. He further submits that the Petitioners have no independent source of income and there are solely depending upon the maintenance paid by the Opposite Party. Thus, taking into consideration the cost of living and need of the Petitioners, the interim maintenance warrants enhancement.

8. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Opposite Party vehemently objects to the same and submits that the Petitioner No.1 without any reasonable cause left the matrimonial home. An application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has

// 3 //

also been filed for restitution of conjugal right. Without considering the same, the interim order has been passed. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside or at least quantum of maintenance should be reduced to some extent.

9. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the impugned order was passed on 24th April, 2017, i.e., more than five years back. An interim order has also been passed by this Court directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.3,500/- per month to Petitioner No.1. Since the impugned order is interim in nature, it is always subject to the final adjudication of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in C.R.P. No.58 of 2016.

10. As such, this Court without interfering with the impugned order dated 24th April, 2017, disposes of both the RPFAMs with a direction that learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar shall make all endeavour to see that C.R.P. No.58 of 2018 is disposed of at an early date giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The interim order of maintenance shall be subject to the final order/judgment to be passed in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

11. Accordingly, the RPFAMs are disposed of.

12. Interim order dated 19th July, 2019 passed in Misc. Case No.229 of 2017 in RPFAM No.154 of 2017 stands vacated.

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

                                       (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                           Judge