Nityananda Mohanty vs Sudhamani Mohanty
2023 Latest Caselaw 9903 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               RPFAM NO.167 OF 2019
                 Nityananda Mohanty               ....                   Petitioner
                                                    Mr. Bijayananda Dash, Advocate

                                            -versus-
                 Sudhamani Mohanty                           ....     Opp. Party
                                                         Mr. S.N. Biswal, Advocate
                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

                                        ORDER

Order No.                              23.08.2023

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

2. Judgment dated 28th June, 2019 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Cr.P. No.448 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month and a litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., from 28th December, 2016.

3. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a retired Government employee and his pension is Rs.17,000/- per month. He has assisted his elder son by providing Rs.3,000,00/- from his retrial due to run his business. The Petitioner has also incurred loan which he is repaying. Thus, it is very difficult on part of the Petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party as maintenance.

4. Mr. Biswal, learned counsel for the Opposite Party submits that O.P.W.2- younger son of the Petitioner had admitted in his cross-examination that the Petitioner was

// 2 //

drawing pension of Rs.19,710/- per month as on 1st July, 2015. The Petitioner has also landed, residential as well as agricultural properties. The quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is not unreasonable, taking into consideration the status of the Opposite Party, she would have maintained with the Petitioner and the cost of living. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order warrants no interference.

5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that marital relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the Petitioner is a retired Government employee and he is drawing pension.

6. Although, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is drawing a pension of Rs.17,000/- per month, but his younger son examined as O.P.W.2 categorically stated that the Petitioner was drawing a pension of Rs.19,710/- per month as on 1st July, 2015. Repayment of loan and financial assistance to the elder son cannot be ground to deny maintenance to the Opposite Party-Wife. Those should not be taken into consideration for computing the income of the Petitioner in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 6.1 Since the Petitioner was admittedly drawing a pension of Rs.19,710/- per month in the year 2015, being revised from time to time and an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month has been directed to be paid as maintenance to the Opposite Party, this Court feels that the same is not unreasonable and warrants no interference.

// 3 //

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

8. Interim order dated 13th August, 2019 passed in I.A. No.306 of 2019 stands vacated.

                                                                    (K.R. Mohapatra)
               Rojalin                                                    Judge




Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 23-Aug-2023 18:49:07