Ranjushree Rout And Another vs Debakanta Mohapatra
2023 Latest Caselaw 4058 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   RPFAM No. 53 OF 2023
                 Ranjushree Rout and another                ....      Petitioners
                                                   Mr. J.K. Mishra-2, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Debakanta Mohapatra                        ....    Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

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

2. Judgment dated 24th January, 2023 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Criminal Proceeding No.223 of 2018 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to Petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to Petitioner No.2 from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 9th July, 2018.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that during relevant period, the salary of the Opposite Party was Rs.40,000/- per month. Thus, the amount of maintenance should have been more. It is his submission that the Petitioner No.2 is pursuing her studies and Petitioner No.1 does not have any source of livelihood. Although the Petitioner No.1 has filed a execution case, but the same has not yet been disposed of. The Opposite Party has not paid a single pie to the Petitioners towards their maintenance. In view of the above, he prays for setting aside the impugned judgment under Annexure-1 and to enhance the amount of maintenance.

// 2 //

4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the impugned judgment under Annexure-1, it appears that the Opposite Party was getting a salary of Rs.40,000/- per month during the relevant period. Learned Judge, Family Court while adjudicating the matter took note of the fact that the interim arrangement has been made vide order dated 19th March, 2018 passed in D.V. Misc. Case No.237 of 2016, wherein the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to Petitioner No.1. Taking into consideration the same, the Opposite Party has been directed to pay the maintenance as above, over and above the amount of maintenance granted in the proceeding in D.V. Misc. Case No.237 of 2016.

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the salary of the Petitioner was Rs.40,000/- per month during the relevant period and the Petitioner No.1 has been awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in D.V. Misc. Case No.237 of 2016, this Court is of the considered opinion that the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid by the Opposite Party in the impugned judgment under Annexure-1 warrants no interference.

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

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

                                      (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                          Judge