Pradyumna Naik @ Pradyumna vs Nayana Naik
2023 Latest Caselaw 4056 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 178 OF 2017
                 Pradyumna Naik @ Pradyumna            ....       Petitioner
                 Kumar Naik
                                         Mr. Aurovind Pattnaik, Advocate
                                   on behalf of Mr. G.N. Mishra, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Nayana Naik                               ....     Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             21.04.2023
   4.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 5th July, 2017 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in Cr.P. No.21 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 18th March, 2016.

3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since the A.D. of admission notice on the Opposite Party has not returned, he may be allowed to take fresh steps for issuance of notice on the Opposite Party. In this case, pursuant to the order dated 23rd August, 2018, notice was issued to the Opposite Party in her correct address by Registered Post with A.D., but, the A.D. has not yet returned. Thus, notice on Opposite Party is treated to be sufficient.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner does not dispute the relationship between the parties. He, however, submits that the

// 2 //

Opposite Party without any reasonable cause, left the matrimonial home and in spite of the best efforts by the Petitioner, she did not come with him. Hence, she is not entitled to any maintenance in view of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.. Although learned Judge, Family Court framed an issue to that effect, but answered the same in the negative against the Petitioner. It is his submission that evidence led on behalf of the Petitioner was not properly appreciated by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in arriving at a conclusion. He also submits that the Petitioner does not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance, as directed. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned judgment.

5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, it appears that the Opposite Party was examined as P.W.1 and she has categorically stated that after seven days of her marriage, she was tortured both physically and mentally to bring Rs.40,000/- which her father allegedly agreed to pay at the time of marriage. Due to non-payment of such amount, she was forcibly taken to her parental home by the Petitioner and by leaving her, the Petitioner returned back with a warning to bring rest of dowry articles. Although the Petitioner examined witnesses on his behalf, but the same is not reliable, as held by learned Judge, Family Court.

6. Since this Court is exercising power under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. It also appears that the finding with regard to desertion of the Opposite Party has been answered by learned Judge, Family Court by appreciating the evidence on record. Only because a second view may be possible, this Court should not re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings. It

// 3 //

further appears that at the time of marriage, the family members of the Petitioner impressed upon the family members of the Opposite Party that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. It also appears that the Petitioner is a able bodied person and was thirty years old at the time of adjudication of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Hence, the quantum of maintenance, as determined by learned Judge, Family Court does not appear to be unreasonable.

7. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

8. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

9. Interim order dated 23rd August, 2018 passed in Misc. Case No.58 of 2018 stands vacated.

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

                                       (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                           Judge