Orissa High Court
Jamesh Chandra Pradhan vs Arati Pradhan And Another on 7 July, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: Secreatary
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 08-Jul-2023 14:51:38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 165 of 2018
Jamesh Chandra Pradhan .... Petitioner
Mr. Susanta Kumar Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Arati Pradhan and another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Anirudha Das, Advocate
(Opposite Party No.1)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 07.07.2023
8. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 31st January, 2018 (Annexure-3) passed
by learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani in CRP No.98 of
2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby refusing
maintenance to Opposite Party No.1 the Petitioner has been
directed to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the
Opposite Party No.2 from the date of application, i.e., 22nd
September, 2016.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that previously Opposite Parties had filed Misc. Case No.60 of
2004 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The
said application was disposed of by learned SDJM, Phulbani on
compromise vide order dated 31st January, 2006 (Annexure-5).
It is his submission that during pendency of Misc. Case No.60
of 2004, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the
Opposite Party No.1 by filing an affidavit has categorically
stated that she has received Rs.1.00 lakh as one time settlement
for her and for the minor daughter. A joint affidavit was also
filed therein corroborating the same. After a lapse of ten years
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
// 2 //
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: Secreatary
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 08-Jul-2023 14:51:38
of the onetime settlement and accepting the settled amount,
another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was field by the
Opposite parties claiming maintenance. Learned Judge, Family
Court, while refusing to grant maintenance to Opposite Party
No.1, directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/-
per month to the Opposite Party No.2, the minor daughter.
Hence, this RPFAM has been filed.
3.1 It is his submission that since as per the settlement the
previous application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was disposed of
on compromise, the Opposite Parties are estopped to file
subsequent application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. more
particularly when the Opposite Party No.1 had received a sum
of Rs.1.00 lakh towards onetime settlement for her and the
minor daughter. Learned Judge, Family Court did not accept
said settlement stating that no agreement can be arrived at by
the mother /Opposite Party No.1, which is detrimental to the
interest of the minor daughter/Opposite Party No.2. He,
therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order.
4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for Opposite Parties submits
that Opposite Party No.1 had also filed RPFAM No.86 of 2018
challenging the refusal of order of maintenance in her favour in
the impugned order. The said RPFAM was dismissed vide
order dated 16th May, 2023. It is his submission that the
Petitioner in the affidavit (Ext.8), had accepted the joint
responsibility of the minor child/Opposite Party No.2. He had
also undertaken to meet the expenses of her marriage. Thus, the
Petitioner cannot deny his liability to pay maintenance to the
Opposite Party No.2, the minor daughter. She is entitled to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
// 3 //
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: Secreatary
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 08-Jul-2023 14:51:38
maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. till she attains majority.
Thus, agreement, if any, in respect of Opposite Party No.2 is
not binding on her, as she was a minor and the terms of the
agreement was detrimental to her interest. Be that as it may, the
Opposite Party No.2 being minor daughter of the Petitioner, is
entitled to receive maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He,
therefore, prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.
5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on
perusal of record, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court
accepting the agreement and separate living of Opposite Party
No.1 on mutual consent, rejected the prayer for maintenance in
her favour. Admittedly, a joint affidavit was filed by the parties
in Misc. Case No.60 of 2004 filed by the Opposite Parties
under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
5.1 It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
Petitioner that in Misc. Case No.60 of 2004, the Opposite Party
No.1, had filed an affidavit stating that she has received
Rs.1.00 lakh as onetime settlement for her and for the minor
daughter. On perusal of the joint affidavit of the Petitioner and
Opposite Party No.1 filed in Misc. Case No.60 of 2004
annexed to the RPFAM as Annexure-6, it does not appear that
there is any recital of acceptance of onetime settlement by
Opposite Party No.1 in favour of her minor daughter. On the
other hand, at para-13 of the joint affidavit, it has been clearly
stated "That both the parties have their joint right and liberty
on their minor daughter namely Glorima Pradhan." It is also
stated that the Petitioner shall take necessary step with the help
of Opposite Party No.1 in all respect regarding marriage of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
// 4 //
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Designation: Secreatary
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 08-Jul-2023 14:51:38
minor daughter, namely, Glorima Pradhan, when she attains her
marriageable age. Thus, affidavit, if any, by the Opposite Party
No.1 filed in Misc. Case No.60 of 2004 cannot absolve the
liability of the Petitioner to maintain his minor daughter.
Further, the affidavit under Annexure-4 filed by Opposite Party
No.1 in Misc. Case No.60 of 2004, wherein she has stated to
have accepted Rs.1.00 lakh towards onetime settlement for her
and for her minor daughter, was sworn in her personal capacity
and not on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
6. A claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance is
continuing cause of action. The Opposite Party No.2 is entitled
to maintenance till she attains her age of majority. Admittedly,
the Petitioner was serving as Mali at the time of passing of the
impugned order. Learned Judge, Family Court, Phulbani,
taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the
case, need of Opposite Party No.2 as well as capability of the
Petitioner to pay the maintenance, has directed as above. I find
the same to be not unreasonable. In that view of the matter, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed being
devoid of any merit.
7. Interim order dated 27th June, 2018 passed in IA No.221
of 2018 stands vacated.
Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
s.s.satapathy
