Orissa High Court
Ramakanta Nayak vs Itishree Mohapatra @ Senapati on 20 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 167 OF 2017
Ramakanta Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. Balaram Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
Itishree Mohapatra @ Senapati .... Opp. Party
Mr. P.K. Barik, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 20.04.2023
8. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Order dated 5th May, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned
Judge, Family Court, Jajpur in Cr.P. (Exn.) No.163 of 2015 is
under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby D.W. and conditional
N.B.W. has been issued against the Petitioner for realization of
arrear maintenance of Rs.45,500/-.
3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23rd May,
2010. But subsequently on 9th June, 2010, the Opposite Party
deserted the Petitioner and thereafter filed an application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Cr.P. No.591 of 2011. The said petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed vide order dated 15th
April, 2014 directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance @
Rs.1,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of
application and Rs.1,500/- per month from the date of the order.
The Petitioner also unsuccessfully challenged the order in
RPFAM No.75 of 2015. Although initially vide order dated 10th
February, 2016 in Misc. Case No.42 of 2016 the order passed
under Section 125 was stayed, but subsequently, RPFAM No.75
// 2 //
of 2015 was dismissed. Thereafter the Opposite Party filed Cr.P.
(Exn.) No.163 of 2015 for realization of the arrear maintenance of
Rs.45,500/-. Due to non-payment of arrear maintenance,
D.W./Conditional N.B.W. has been issued against the Petitioner
for realization of the said amount.
4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
after deserting the Petitioner, the Opposite Party married to one
Umakanta Senapati S/o. Late Baikuntha Senapati, Village-
Harisankarpur, PS- Bhadrak (Rural). Due to such act, the wife of
Umakanta Senapati namely, Mamata Senapati lodged F.I.R. in
Gondia Police Station, which was registered as Gondia P.S. Case
No.42 of 2014 under Sections 294/341/323/498-
A/494/506/307/34 of IPC read with Section 4 of the D.P. Act. The
same is now pending in G.R. Case No.441 of 2014 in the Court of
learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal. Since the Opposite Party has
remarried in the meantime, the Petitioner is not liable to pay the
arrear maintenance as claimed. Hence, he prays for setting aside
the impugned order under Annexure-1.
5. Mr. Barik, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits
that since the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been
confirmed by this Court in RPFAM No.75 of 2015, the Petitioner
is liable to pay the said amount.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that assailing
the judgment passed in Cr.P. No.591 of 2011 filed under Section
125 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner had moved this Court in RPFAM
No.75 of 2015, which has already been dismissed vide order dated
24th March, 2017. In that view of the matter, the Petitioner is
liable to pay the arrear maintenance pursuant to the order passed
// 3 //
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. As the Petitioner did not pay the said
amount, Cr.P. (Exn.) No.163 of 2015 was filed by the Opposite
Party and the impugned order under Annexure-1 has been passed.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and since the
order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is still in force, the
Petitioner is liable to pay the arrear maintenance of Rs.45,500/-
and for non-payment of the same, learned Judge, Family Court,
Jajpur has rightly directed to issue D.W. and N.B.W. for
realization of the said amount.
8. Hence, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under
Annexure-1.
9. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands
dismissed.
10. Interim order dated 1st May, 2018 passed in Misc. Case
No.248 of 2017 stands vacated.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
