Urmila Behera And Another vs Sri Dusasan Behera
2023 Latest Caselaw 1672 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 192 OF 2014
                 Urmila Behera and another                 ....       Petitioners
                                                     Ms. Sujata Jena, Advocate
                                          -versus-
                 Sri Dusasan Behera                        ....     Opp. Party


                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             22.02.2023
   6.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 22nd October, 2014 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Criminal Proceeding No.213 of 2013 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.1,500/- per month to Petitioner No.1 and Rs.500/- per month to Petitioner No.2 from the date of application along with a cost of Rs.1,000/-.

3. Ms. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that relationship between the parties is not disputed. During the relevant period, the Opposite Party had a mobile phone business at Jajpur town. During pendency of the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Petitioners had filed an application for interim maintenance, in which interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to Petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to Petitioner No.2 was directed to be paid by the Opposite Party. Although the Opposite Party appeared in the proceeding, but he did not contest. However, the criminal proceeding filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was disposed of ex parte reducing the interim maintenance. It is her submission that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of interim maintenance should at least be maintained in the

// 2 //

final judgment, in absence of any material to reduce the same. Learned Judge, Family Court without considering the same, passed the impugned order by reducing the interim maintenance without assigning any reason therein. Hence, this RPFAM has been filed.

4. Although notice on the Opposite Party is made sufficient, but none appears on his behalf at the time of hearing.

5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the meantime, more than eight years have already elapsed from the date of filing of the RPFAM. Although learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Rs.3,000/- per month was directed to be paid to Petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 as interim maintenance, but there is no material on record to appreciate the same. The Petitioners have remedy under Section 127 Cr.P.C. to seek for enhancement of the maintenance amount. Due to lapse of time, this Court feels that the Petitioners, if so advised, may file an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

6. It is, however, made clear that if the interim maintenance is higher than the quantum of maintenance in the final judgment, the Petitioners will be entitled to the same till the date of the order.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this RPFAM stands disposed of.

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

                                        (K.R. Mohapatra)
ms                                            Judge