Orissa High Court
Antaram Meher vs Babita @ Dileswari Meher on 7 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO.20 OF 2018
Antaram Meher .... Petitioner
Mr. Bhojraj Seth, Advocate
-versus-
Babita @ Dileswari Meher .... Opp. Party
None
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 07.07.2023
6. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Judgment dated 29th June, 2017 (Annexure-2) passed by
learned Judge, Family Court, Bargarh in Criminal Misc. Case
No.176-889 of 2015-16 is under challenge in this RPFAM,
whereby allowing an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. filed
by the Opposite Party, the Petitioner has been directed to pay
maintenance at the enhanced rate of 2,500/- per month to the
Opposite Party from the date of filing of the application, i.e.,
from 12th August, 2015.
3. Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that
earlier in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in CMC No.
63 of 2004, learned J.M.F.C., Bargarh directed the Petitioner to
pay maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the Opposite Party
which is being paid to her.
4. Subsequently, the Opposite Party filed the aforesaid
application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of the
maintenance amount. Learned Judge, Family Court without
// 2 //
appreciating the matter in its proper prospective, directed the
Petitioner to pay maintenance at the aforesaid enhanced rate.
Hence, this RPFAM has been filed.
5. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a poor man and he
has no sufficient means to pay the maintenance at the enhanced
rate. The contention of the Opposite Party that the Petitioner is a
government servant and also has income from the agricultural
sources, is not correct. Learned Judge, Family Court without
appreciating the same has passed the impugned order. Hence, he
prays for setting aside the same.
6. Although the Opposite Party is represented through
learned counsel, but none appears on her behalf at the time of
call.
7. Upon hearing Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the
Petitioner has not adduced any evidence with regard to his
income which is in his special knowledge. Further, the Opposite
Party has filed document i.e., Ext.1. It shows that the Petitioner
is a co-sharer in joint family property. Previously, in a
proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner was
directed to pay maintenance of RS.1,000/- per month. Due to
non-payment of the same, several execution cases were filed.
8. In course of hearing of the petition under Section 127
Cr.P.C., the Opposite Party filed documents with regard to the
employment of the Petitioner obtaining it under the Right to
Information Act. Learned Judge, Family Court, considering the
fact that the salary of the Petitioner had increased in the
meantime, and there is also a rise in the cost of his living, has
// 3 //
directed to pay maintenance as above. The order of maintenance
passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was in the year 2006 and the
petition for enhancement of maintenance amount was filed in the
year 2016, i.e., after 10 years. Naturally, the cost of living must
have increased substantially in the meantime. Since the
Petitioner was in Government service, his salary must have
increased during that period. Thus, I find no infirmity in the
order enhancing the maintenance amount from 1,000/- to 2,500/-
per month as directed by learned Judge, Family Court.
9. In view of the above, the RPFAM, being devoid of any
merit stands dismissed.
10. Interim orders dated 13th March, 2018 and 17th May,
2019 in Misc. Case No.23 of 2018 stand vacated.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Rojalin Judge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Jul-2023 11:31:08
