Pradeep Kumar Panigrahy @ Pradip vs Archana Panda
2023 Latest Caselaw 1386 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 90 OF 2011
                 Pradeep Kumar Panigrahy @ Pradip       ....      Petitioners
                 Kumar Panigrahy
                                    Mr. Shyam Sundar Tripathy, Advocate
                                      on behalf of Mr. P.K. Rath, Advocate

                                          -versus-
                 Archana Panda                          .... Opp. Party
                                               Mr. L. Samantaray, Advocate

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            09.02.2023
   12.      1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 26th June, 2011 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in Cr.P. No.881 of 2010 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of the order.

3. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he does not have any instruction with regard to the present status of the parties. However, the Opposite Party was drawing a salary of Rs.9,300/- per month at the relevant period. Further ex parte decree of divorce is staring at the Opposite Party. Hence, a direction to pay maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month is not reasonable. The Opposite Party is not entitled to any maintenance in view of the decree of divorce passed against her. In that view

// 2 //

of the matter, he prays for an adjournment to take further instruction in the matter.

4. This Court is not inclined to entertain the prayer for adjournment on the ground that the RPFAM has to be disposed of on the facts and circumstances prevailing then and materials available on record.

5. On perusal of the record, more particularly, the impugned order under Annexure-1, it appears that the gross salary of the Petitioner was Rs.26,247/- per month at the relevant period. However, he did not file any document with regard to his net salary. Admittedly, the Opposite Party is the wife of the Petitioner. A divorced lady is also entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C

6. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel also drew attention of this Court to the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Bargarh under Annexure-5, which discloses that one Archana Panda, GPTA at Bargarh Block of Bargarh District, was getting consolidated salary of Rs.9,300/- per month. The said document was not filed before the learned Judge, Family Court, as it would be apparent from the impugned order under Annexure-1. Although an order of appointment of the Opposite Party was marked as Ext.A, but there is nothing on record with regard to her income. In absence of any material with regard to income of the Opposite Party, learned Judge, Family Court assessed the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month taking into consideration the status of the parties, respective needs and capacity of the

// 3 //

husband (Petitioner) to pay, having regard to his personal expenses.

7. Law is well settled that the quantum of maintenance should be assessed keeping in mind the status, a wife would have maintained being with her husband. Since the gross income of the Petitioner was Rs.26,247/- per month at the relevant period, this Court feels that the maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month is not unreasonable or inflated. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-1 warrants no interference.

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

9. Interim order dated 17th May, 2013 passed in Misc. Case No.119 of 2011 stands vacated.

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

                                      (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                          Judge