Gauranga Das Mohapatra vs Mina Das Mohapatra
2023 Latest Caselaw 1680 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                RPFAM No.7 of 2014
                 Gauranga Das Mohapatra                  ....       Petitioner
                                          Mr.Jugal Kishore Panda, Advocate
                             On behalf of Mr. Shakti Prasad Panda, Advocate
                                           -versus-
                 Mina Das Mohapatra                    ....      Opp. Party
                                       Mr. Rabindra Kumar Sahoo, Advocate

                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                      ORDER

Order No.                            22.02.2023
 13.        1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 26th April, 2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No.13 of 2010 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., from 10th November, 2006.

3. Mr. Jugal Kishore Panda, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Shakti Prasad Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that marriage between the parties is not dispute. However, the Opposite Party - wife left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause. The allegation that the Petitioner is earning Rs.10.00 lakh per annum is also without any basis. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the Opposite Party with regard to income of the Petitioner. Hence, the quantum of maintenance determined by the learned Judge, Family Court is not reasonable and the same is excessive. The Petitioner is a Sevayat in Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri and

// 2 //

he earns his livelihood from the income from the temple services. Thus, he is not in a position to pay the aforesaid amount of maintenance. Hence, the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid by the Petitioner requires reconsideration.

4. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-wife submits that since the marriage is not disputed and the Opposite Party does not have any independent source of income, she is entitled to maintenance. While adjudicating the matter, learned Judge, Family Court has taken note of the fact that the Petitioner has married for the second time and is maintaining a second family. The Opposite Party has led evidence to the effect that Petitioner is earning Rs.10.00 lakh per annum. There is no material available on record to disbelieve the same. Considering the same, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, the same requires no interference. The second marriage of the Petitioner itself is the cause for the Opposite Party to leave the matrimonial home. As such, there is sufficient cause for the Opposite Party-wife to leave the matrimonial home. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the Petitioner is a Sevayat in Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri. After marriage with the Opposite Party, he married for the second time and he is maintaining his family with the second lady.

6. Income of a person is in his special knowledge. A contention has been raised that the Petitioner was earning Rs.10.00 lakh per annum at the relevant period. No rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the Petitioner to disbelieve the same. Had any evidence been led by the Petitioner with regard

// 3 //

to his income, learned Family Court would have been in a position to take the same into consideration. In absence of any material to the contrary, learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar had to make guess work and passed the impugned order. Admittedly, due to second marriage, the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home. Thus, it cannot be said that the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home without any sufficient cause. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance does not appear to be unreasonable. As such, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

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

8. Conditional interim order dated 4th March, 2014 stands vacated.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

s.s.satapathy