Rabindra Behera @ Rabi Behera vs Jayanti Behera
2023 Latest Caselaw 1128 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  RPFAM No. 122 OF 2012
                 Rabindra Behera @ Rabi Behera            ....        Petitioner
                                                      Mr. J. Parida, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Jayanti Behera                          .... Opp. Party
                                             Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            02.02.2023
   10.      1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 29th September, 2012 (Annexure-1) passed in Criminal Petition No.358 of 2011 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the application.

3. Mr. Parida, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the relationship between the parties is not disputed. But the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid is unreasonable and inflated. The finding to the effect that the Petitioner as a mason earns Rs.12,000/- per month and his agricultural income is Rs.40,000/- per annum has no basis. The Opposite Party-Wife could not produce any material in support of her case with regard to income of the Petitioner. Learned Judge, Family Court without considering the same passed the impugned order under Annexure-

1. Hence, this RPFAM has been filed.

4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Wife submits that the deposition of the Opposite Party with regard to the income of the Petitioner was not disturbed in cross- examination. It is the duty of the Opposite Party to place on

// 2 //

record the income of the Petitioner. Since there is no contrary material available on record, learned Judge, Family Court making a guess work by accepting the statement of the Opposite Party, has arrived at a conclusion that the Petitioner has an income of Rs.12,000/- per month, as a mason. It is his submission that the quantum of maintenance is also not unreasonable in comparison to the income of the Petitioner. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner has not adduced any evidence with regard to his income, which is in his special knowledge. The Petitioner has only refused the claim of the Opposite Party with regard to income of the Petitioner. As no material contrary to the statement made by the Opposite Party with regard to income of the Petitioner is available on record, learned Judge, Family Court has committed no error in accepting the same. It further appears that a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- per month has been directed to be paid by the Petitioner to the Opposite Party towards maintenance. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-1.

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

7. Interim order dated 30th January, 2013 passed in M.C. No.212 of 2012, which was modified vide order dated 21st March, 2013 stands vacated.

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

                                      (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                          Judge