Orissa High Court
Binod Pradhan @ Bhakta Binod Baba vs Yotsna Pradhan on 27 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 299 OF 2017
Binod Pradhan @ Bhakta Binod Baba .... Petitioner
Mr. Arjuna Charan Behera, Advocate
-versus-
Yotsna Pradhan .... Opp. Party
Mr. Himansu Bhusan Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 27.04.2023
3. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 11th October 2017 (Annexure-3) passed
by learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in Criminal Misc. Case
No.187-847 of 2013-16 is under challenge in this RPFAM,
whereby allowing an application filed under Section 127
Cr.P.C., the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance to
the Opposite Party at the enhanced rate or Rs.2,000/- per month
from the date of application, i.e., 22nd October, 2013.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in CMC
No.51 of 1993, learned SDJM, Bargarh, vide order dated 16th
August, 1996, directed to pay maintenance of Rs.150/- per
month to the Opposite Party. The said order was unsuccessfully
challenged by the Opposite Party in Criminal Revision No.45 of
1996-2001, whereby learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Bargarh, dismissing the appeal vide order dated 5th
March, 2002 gave an opportunity to the Opposite Party to file an
application under Section 127 Cr.P.C., if so advised.
Accordingly, the Opposite Party filed an application under
Section 127 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order has been passed.
// 2 //
3.1 It is submitted by learned counsel that the Petitioner is
leading a life of Sadhu and is residing in a Math. He begs alms
for the Math and for himself and thus he is not in a position to
pay maintenance as aforesaid. It is his submission that as the
Petitioner does not have the means to pay maintenance he could
not pay a single pie as per direction of learned SDJM, Bargarh.
The Opposite Party left the matrimonial home voluntarily and as
the Petitioner could not contest the petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C., it was disposed of directing him to pay maintenance at
the rate of Rs.150/- per month. It is also submitted that the
petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce was
filed, which was allowed directing the Petitioner to pay
maintenance at the rate of Rs.600/- per month. The said order
was challenged by the Opposite party in Matrimonial Appeal
No.3 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Bargarh. The
said appeal was dismissed by enhancing the amount of
maintenance by Rs.1,000/- per month. Thus, an application
under Section127 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable at the instance of
the Opposite Party. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the
impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Wife submits
that relationship between the parties is not disputed. The
Petitioner has not paid a single pie towards arrear maintenance.
It is his submission that the Petitioner is liable to pay
maintenance to the Opposite Party-Wife bereft of the fact that
he is a Sadhu. Maintenance at the enhanced rate of Rs.2,000/-
per month is not unreasonable taking into consideration the cost
// 3 //
of living and price index during the relevant period. In that view
of the matter, he prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of record, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court,
Bargarh, while considering the matter, has discussed the
evidence in detail led by the parties and came to a conclusion
that the Opposite Party-Wife is entitled to maintenance at the
enhanced rate of Rs.2,000/- per month. Though it is not disputed
that marriage between the parties has already been dissolved by
a decree of divorce, but that does not take away the effect of an
order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless order to that
effect is passed in the proceeding for dissolution of marriage. In
the instant case, the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has
never been set aside or varied. Due to passage of time, the
Opposite Party filed an application for enhancement of the
maintenance amount as cost of living had increased.
Admittedly, the Opposite Party does not have any independent
source of income. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that
direction to the Petitioner to pay maintenance at the enhanced
rate of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party is reasonable.
As such, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
6. Hence, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands
dismissed.
7. Interim order dated 2nd August, 2018 passed in M.C.
No.412 of 2017 stands vacated.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
