Orissa High Court
Ratikanta Barik vs Laxmipriya Barik And Another on 7 August, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 47 OF 2019
Ratikanta Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. Hemanta Kumar Ratsingh, Advocate
-versus-
Laxmipriya Barik and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Saugat Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 07.08.2023
14. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 11th January, 2019 passed by learned
Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Cr.P. No.423 of 2016 is under
challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been
directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to
Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to Opposite Party
No.2 from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 7th
December, 2016.
3. Mr. Ratsingh, learned counsel for the Petitioner assails
the order on two grounds; firstly, the Opposite Party No.1-Wife
left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and
secondly the quantum of maintenance is unreasonable, which is
not inconsonance with the net salary of the Petitioner.
4. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 left the
matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. In spite of
repeated attempts and intervention of village gentries, she did
not return to the matrimonial home. A compromise was also
arrived at between the parties in which she agreed to reside with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed // 2 //
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09
the mother-in-law at Balasore town in a separate rented house.
But, she did not agree to the same subsequently. Learned Judge,
Family Court erroneously held that the net salary of the
Petitioner is Rs.30,000/- per month. The Petitioner was, in fact,
drawing Rs.20,031/- per month as his net salary. Thus, a
direction to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the
Opposite Parties is unreasonable and warrants interference.
5. It is his submission that Exts.6 and 7 are the salary
certificates produced by the Opposite Party No.1-Wife, which
clearly disclose that the net income of the Petitioner is much less
than that observed by learned Judge, Family Court. Hence, he
prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the
matter back to learned Judge, Family Court for fresh
consideration of the matter in accordance with law.
6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties
submits that although an allegation was made against the
Opposite Party No.1 that she left the matrimonial home without
any reasonable cause, but no evidence to that effect was adduced
by the Petitioner. Further the salary certificates of the Petitioner
for the month of April and May, 2018 clearly disclose that his
gross salary was Rs.55,651/-. It is his submission that voluntary
deduction cannot be taken into consideration for assessment of
quantum of maintenance. He, therefore, submits that no
illegality has been committed by learned Judge, Family Court in
the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.
7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this
Court finds that although an allegation was made by the
Petitioner to the effect that she left the matrimonial home
without any reasonable cause, but no documentary evidence was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed // 3 //
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09
adduced by the Petitioner in that regard. It is categorically
alleged that due to intervention of the village gentries, a
compromise deed between the Petitioner and Opposite Party
No.1 was executed before Notary Public, wherein it was decided
that the Opposite Party No.1 will reside at Balasore town in a
rented house with her old mother-in-law. No such document
was filed before learned Judge, Family Court for consideration.
On the other hand, it appears that on the allegation of demand of
dowry and domestic violence, several cases have been filed
against the Petitioner at the instance of the Opposite Party No.1-
Wife. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that in
her evidence, the Opposite Party No.1 had admitted that there
was a compromise. On the background that she was ill-treated
for demand of dowry and in absence of document alleged to
have been executed before Notary Public, I am not persuaded to
accept the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner.
8. Admittedly no evidence has been adduced by the
Petitioner with regard to his income. However, Exts.6 and 7 the
salary certificates of April and May, 2018 were produced by the
Opposite Party No.1, which disclose that the gross salary of the
Petitioner was Rs.55,651/- per month. Voluntary deductions of
the Petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for
determination of his salary. It appears that a sum of Rs.35,030/-
is being deducted from salary of the Petitioner, which includes
the GPF deductions also. While considering the income,
voluntary deductions of GPF beyond the minimum statutory
limit cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, learned trial
Court has committed no error in directing the Petitioner to pay
the maintenance as aforesaid.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed // 4 //
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09
9. Accordingly, this RPFAM being devoid of any merit
stands dismissed.
10. Interim order dated 18th June, 2019 passed in I.A. No.100
of 2019 stands vacated.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
