Orissa High Court
Hemanta @ Hemanta Kumar Biswal vs Nirupama Biswal And Another on 25 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 246 OF 2017
Hemanta @ Hemanta Kumar Biswal .... Petitioner
Mr. Bhawani Sankar Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
Nirupama Biswal and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. K. Pradhan, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 25.04.2023
5. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Order dated 22nd July, 2017 (Annexure-6) passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh in Crl.M.P. No.87 of 2017
is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has
been directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.1
and Rs.1,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 towards interim
maintenance with effect from the date of filing of the interim
application, i.e., from 24th April, 2017.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel that the
Petitioner is a daily wage earner. His elder son is residing with
him and his old and ailing parents are also depending upon him.
Without considering the same, the impugned order under
Annexure-6 has been passed.
4. Considering the submission made, this Court while issuing
notice vide order dated 18th October, 2017 in Misc. Case No.353
of 2017, directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,500/-
towards arrear interim maintenance of the Opposite Party within a
fortnight from the date of the order and to keep on paying
// 2 //
monthly interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- until further orders.
In support of his case, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied
upon the income certificate under Annexure-3 issued by the
Revenue Officer on 26th May, 2017, which shows that the
Petitioner has an annual income of Rs.20,000/- from agricultural
sources and Rs.55,000/- from other sources. It is submitted that
the annexure-3 was filed before learned Judge, Family Court at
the time of adjudication of the interim application for
maintenance. But, the same was not taken into consideration. In
that view of the matter, he submits that the interim order passed
by this Court should continue till final disposal of the petition
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending before learned Judge, Family
Court, Nayagarh.
5. Mr. Pradhan, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties
submits that he received the brief today and has no instruction in
the matter.
6. Considering the submission of Mr. Panigrahi, learned
counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears
that show cause affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner stating
that he is a daily wage earner. But, there is no reference to the
certificate under Annexure-3 in his show cause affidavit as well as
objection under Annexure-5 filed to the interim application under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Thus, it appears that it is an afterthought of
the Petitioner to deny legitimate maintenance to the Opposite
Parties. It further appears that although the Petitioner stated to be
a daily wage labourer, but the certificate granted by the Revenue
Officer does not reflect so. As such, the certificate issued under
Annexure-3 cannot be relied upon at this stage.
// 3 //
7. On perusal of the record, it appears that there is also no
material on record to show that the Petitioner has complied with
the interim order passed by this Court. It further appears that
learned Judge, Family Court considering the materials on record
directed the Petitioner to pay the interim maintenance as stated
above, which I find to be reasonable in the facts and
circumstances of the case. The order of interim maintenance is,
of course, subject to the final order/judgment to be passed in the
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
8. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere
with the impugned order under Annexure-6.
9. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands
dismissed.
10. Interim order dated 18th October, 2017 passed in Misc.
Case No.353 of 2017 stands vacated.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
