Kiran Kumar Lenka vs Binapani Lenka And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1087 Ori

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                   RPFAM No. 29 OF 2015
                 Kiran Kumar Lenka                       ....      Petitioner
                                         Mr. Gopal Krishna Nayak, Advocate
                                             -versus-
                 Binapani Lenka and another                 ....    Opp. Parties


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                    ORDER

Order No.                         01.02.2023
            RPFAM No. 29 OF 2015
            & Misc. Case No. 19 of 2016
   4.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 13th February, 2015 passed in Criminal Proceeding No.120 of 2013 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 19th July, 2013.

3. This Court vide order dated 2nd February, 2016 in Misc. Case No.19 of 2016 as an interim measure, directed that there shall be stay of further proceeding of Execution Misc. Case No.69 of 2015 pending before learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar till the next date subject to the Petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.30,000/- in the trial Court by an account payee bank draft drawn in the name of Opposite Party No.1-Wife within fifteen days hence and on deposit of the said bank draft, the same shall be handed over the Opposite Party No.1 on proper

// 2 //

acknowledgement by the trial Court. In spite of direction of the Court to file requisites for issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties in the said Misc. Case No.19 of 2016, the same has not yet been filed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, prays for an adjournment to file the requisites.

4. As in the meantime, more than seven years have already elapsed, I am not inclined to entertain the prayer made by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

5. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner is disabled person and is not in a position to pay the maintenance, as directed by learned Judge, Family Court. Although there is a direction of the Court to the Opposite Parties to stay with the Petitioner, they are avoiding the same. In view of the above, the Petitioner wants a One Time Settlement in the matter.

6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds taken are not sufficient to interfere with the impugned order. Relationship between the parties being not disputed, the Petitioner is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor child. It is, however, submitted that pursuant to the direction of this Court in Misc. Case No.19 of 2016, the Petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the same has been released in favour of the Opposite Party.

7. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that learned Family Court assessed the income of the Petitioner is Rs.4,500/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. As such, the maintenance awarded does not appear to be unjust.

// 3 //

8. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. It is, however, made clear that the Petitioner, if so advised, may take appropriate steps for One Time Settlement before appropriate forum.

9. Accordingly, the I.A. as well as the RPFAM stand dismissed.

10. Interim order dated 2nd February, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.19 of 2016 stands vacated.

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

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge