Sashikanta Biswal vs Sanjukta Biswal
2023 Latest Caselaw 8443 Ori

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 03-Aug-2023 18:32:27


                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                                 RPFAM No. 337 OF 2022
                                               Sashikanta Biswal                      ....      Petitioner
                                                                     Mr. Gopal Charan Mohanty, Advocate
                                                                        -versus-
                                               Sanjukta Biswal                           ....    Opp. Party


                                                    CORAM:
                                                    JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                                                     ORDER

                   Order No.                                        02.08.2023
                         01.              1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 1st November, 2022 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Cr.P. No.440 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of application, i.e., from 21st December, 2016.

3. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is unemployed and has no source of income. He was working in a hotel and with much difficulty he was meeting with his daily needs. On the other hand, the Opposite Party-Wife was running a coaching centre and was running Rs.20,000/- per month. These material aspects were not taken into consideration at the time of adjudication of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. Hence, this RPFAM has been filed.

4. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner has not adduced any evidence either oral or

Signature Not Verified // 2 // Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Aug-2023 18:32:27

documentary in support of his contention made in the written statement. On the other hand, the categorical statement of the Opposite Party-wife that the Petitioner earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month from his hotel at Nilgiri Kacheri goes uncontroverted. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court making a guess work and taking into consideration the status the Opposite Party would have maintained with the Petitioner, directed to pay the aforesaid amount.

5. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') is pending for consideration. Due to non-cooperation of the Opposite Party, the same could not be disposed of as yet. Pendency of an application under Section 9 of the Act or decree passed in the said proceeding is of no consequence in granting maintenance to the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

6. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-3.

7. Accordingly, this RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

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

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge ms