Jiban Kumar Dey vs Shantilata Dey
2023 Latest Caselaw 4082 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   RPFAM No. 273 OF 2017
                 Jiban Kumar Dey                         ....      Petitioner
                                          Mr. Tapan Kumar Kamila, Advocate
                                            -versus-
                 Shantilata Dey                          ....     Opp. Party
                                          Mr. Amar Kumar Mohanty, Advocate

                              CORAM:
                             JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                         ORDER

Order No.                               21.04.2023


  4.        1.         This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 13th September, 2017 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Criminal Proceeding No.446 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party- Wife from the date of filing the interim application, i.e., 18th August, 2017.

3. Mr. Kamila, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although the Petitioner was drawing pension of Rs.4,960/-, but he has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month, which is unreasonable. He, therefore, submits that the Petitioner is not liable to pay interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month.

4. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Opposite Party-Wife submits that there has already been a settlement between the parties.

// 2 //

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that a revision petition under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is not maintainable against an interim order. Since pursuant to notice, the Opposite Party has already entered appearance, this Court, is of the considered opinion that without delving into technicality, the revision should be disposed of on merit. 5.1 On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that although the Petitioner alleged that he was drawing pension of Rs.4,960/- per month, but no material to that effect was produced. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Wife that bank statement of the Petitioner was produced before learned Judge, Family Court during adjudication of the interim application for maintenance. It further appears that the order impugned herein was passed on 13th September, 2017 and in the meantime more than five years have already lapsed.

6. In that view of the matter, this Court without interfering in the impugned order, disposes of the RPFAM with an observation that the order impugned herein shall be subject to the final orders/judgment to be passed in the CRP No.446 of 2016 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

7. Interim order dated 22nd December, 2017 passed in Misc. Case no.380 of 2017 stands vacated.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy