Orissa High Court
Samir Pradhan @ Samir Kumar vs Madhusmita Pradhan And Another on 17 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 129 OF 2015
Samir Pradhan @ Samir Kumar .... Petitioner
Pradhan
Mr. P.K. Kar, Advocate
-versus-
Madhusmita Pradhan and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Deepak Kumar Sahoo, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 17.02.2023
4. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 23rd July, 2015 (Annexure-1) passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Kendrapara in Criminal Proceeding
No.37 of 2014 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the
Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per
month to the Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to
Opposite Party No.2 till he attains majority from the date of
application, i.e., from 12th February, 2014.
3. Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
although relationship between the parties is not disputed, but the
Opposite Party No.1 out of her own volition, left the matrimonial
home without any sufficient cause. She has her own income. The
Petitioner is a poor man and has his vegetable shop, from which
he was earning his livelihood during the relevant period. Hence,
the maintenance, as directed to be paid to the Opposite Parties is
highly unreasonable and excessive. He, therefore, prays for re-
consideration of quantum of maintenance.
// 2 //
4. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties
contends that quantum of maintenance, as directed by learned
Judge is meager and is not sufficient to maintain themselves. He,
however, submits that steps are being taken to enhance the
quantum of maintenance in accordance law. He further submits
that since there is material on record to come to a conclusion that
due to torture on the Opposite Party No.1, she along with her
minor child left the matrimonial home, the contention of learned
counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that the Opposite Party
No.1 left the matrimonial home voluntarily without any sufficient
cause, is not correct. He further submits that no contention,
whatsoever, with regard to income of the Opposite Party No.1
was raised before learned Judge, Family Court. The Petitioner for
the first time is raising such a contention at the time of hearing of
the RPFAM, which is not permissible in law. Learned Judge,
Family Court considering the materials on record, has passed a
reasoned order under Annexure-1, which warrants no
interference.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of the record, this Court finds that learned Judge, Family
Court has discussed the material in detail. Discussing the
evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner as well as the
Opposite Parties, it came to a conclusion that due to torture meted
out to the Opposite Party No.1, she left the matrimonial home.
There is also material on record to show that after leaving the
matrimonial home, the Opposite Party No.1 also lodged an F.I.R.
at Derabish Police Station alleging torture by the Petitioner
against her. Discussing the materials on record, learned Jude,
Family Court came to a conclusion that the Opposite Party No.1
// 3 //
has sufficient reasons to leave the matrimonial home and she does
not have her independent source of livelihood. Learned Judge,
Family Court has also taken care to determine the quantum of
maintenance taking into consideration the notional income of the
Petitioner. Since no convincing materials was available on
record, learned Judge, Family Court, taking into consideration the
notional income of the Petitioner as a daily laborer, held that he
was earning Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. Accordingly,
quantum of maintenance has been fixed.
6. In that view of the matter, I find no infirmity in the
impugned order under Annexure-1.
7. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands
dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
