Orissa High Court
Bijaya Kumar Panda vs Durgabati Panda And Others on 5 July, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Jul-2023 10:21:10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 55 OF 2018
Bijaya Kumar Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. Gouranga Ch. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Durgabati Panda and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Mamata Behera, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. Karunakara Das, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 05.07.2023
RPFAM No. 55 OF 2018
& RPFAM No. 291 OF 2017
11. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 28th August, 2017 (Annexure-2) passed
by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal
Proceeding No.219 of 2015 is under challenge in both the
RPFAMs.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to both the
RPFAMs are described as per their status before learned Judge,
Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No.219 of
2015.
4. In a proceeding under Section 127 Cr.P.C., learned
Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar enhanced the maintenance
amount and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.6,300/- per
month to the Petitioner and their minor sons from the date of
filing of the petition, i.e., from 21st November, 2015.
5. RPFAM No.291 of 2017 has been filed by the Petitioner
No.1-Wife for further enhancement of the maintenance amount.
RPFAM No.55 of 2018 has been filed by the Opposite Party-
Signature Not Verified // 2 //
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Jul-2023 10:21:10 husband for setting aside the impugned judgment on the ground
that the enhancement of maintenance is not justified.
6. The Petitioner No.1-Wife assailed the judgment
impugned herein on the ground that the Opposite Party is getting
a salary of about Rs.70,000/- per month. Hence, enhancement of
maintenance amount is not inconsonance with the enhancement
of the salary of the Petitioner pursuant to implementation of
recommendation of the 7th Pay Commission. It is submitted that
cost of living of the Petitioners which includes the rent of the
house, fooding, clothing and medical expenses would be
Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. Hence, the enhanced
amount of maintenance is not justified. The Petitioner No.1 is
entitled to further enhancement in the maintenance amount.
7. In RPFAM No.55 of 2018, the Opposite Party-husband
contended that although the salary certificate was exhibited as
Ext.C, but the same was not taken into consideration while
enhancing the maintenance amount. Of course, the Opposite
Party was in receipt of a higher salary on the date of adjudication
of the petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C.. In the meantime, the
Opposite Party is retired from service and Petitioner Nos.2 and 3
have attained their age of majority. Thus, they are not entitled to
maintenance. After retirement, the Petitioner is getting a
pension of Rs.20,000/- per month only. Hence, it is very
difficulty on the part of the Opposite Party to pay the
maintenance to the Petitioners. Hence, Mr. Mohapatra, learned
counsel for the Opposite Party prays for setting aside the
impugned judgment.
8. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of the record, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court
Signature Not Verified // 3 //
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Jul-2023 10:21:10 taking into consideration the salary certificate of the Opposite
Party for the month of May, 2017 (Ext.C) has directed to pay an
enhanced amount of maintenance to the Petitioners @ Rs.6,300/-
per month. Events occurred subsequent to passing of the
impugned judgment cannot be taken into consideration in a
petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
The same is a ground to seek for variation of the order of
maintenance by filing appropriate application before learned
Judge, Family Court. It further appears that learned Judge,
Family Court taking into consideration the materials on record,
more particularly, the enhancement of the salary of the Opposite
Party has directed to pay the maintenance at an enhanced rate of
Rs.6,300/- per month to the Petitioners. While enhancing the
quantum of maintenance, learned Judge, Family Court has taken
into consideration the rise in cost of living, need of the
Petitioners as well as capability of the Opposite Party to pay the
maintenance.
9. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that there is no
infirmity in the impugned judgment.
10. Accordingly, both the RPFAMs stand dismissed.
11. It is, however, open to the parties to seek for variation of
the impugned order before learned Judge, Family Court,
Bhubaneswar, if they so advised in the event there is change in
circumstance.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
ms Judge
