Ananta Kumar Jena vs Reeka Rani Nayak @ Jena And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7677 Ori

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 18-Jul-2023 13:00:18                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                               RPFAM No. 29 OF 2018
                                               Ananta Kumar Jena                     ....       Petitioner
                                                                      Mr. Diptendu Sundar Ray, Advocate
                                                                      -versus-
                                               Reeka Rani Nayak @ Jena and another .... Opp. Parties
                                                                               Mr. Ashok Das, Advocate

                                                    CORAM:
                                                    JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                                                    ORDER

                       Order No.                                   17.07.2023
                             6.           1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 26th May, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur, Ganjam in Criminal Proceeding No.215 of 2015 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.1 (wife) and Rs.2,000/- pr month to Opposite Party No.2 (minor son) from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 17th October, 2015.

3. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. It is his submission that the Opposite Party No.1 is serving as a teacher and has sufficient means to maintain herself. But inadvertently, neither any written statement could be filed by the Petitioner to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. nor any evidence to that effect could be led. The Petitioner is leading a precarious life and his ailing mother is depending upon him. He does not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance, as directed. Hence, he prays for setting aside

// 2 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Jul-2023 13:00:18 the impugned order under Annexure-1 and to remit the matter back to learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur to give the Petitioner an opportunity to file the written statement and to contest the case by filing documents in support of his case.

4. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that the Petitioner has not made out any case to set aside the impugned judgment. At the time of marriage, the Petitioner had disclosed that he is working as a Lecturer in Sikhya College, Gandhi Nagar, Berhampur and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as his salary. The Petitioner has also landed properties. Since no written statement has been filed by the Petitioner and no evidence has been adduced with regard to his income, the impugned judgment should not be interfered with. It is his submission that learned Judge, Family Court considering the materials on record has passed a reasoned order, which should not be interfered with in a petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.

5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Petitioner had not filed any written statement nor adduced any document in support of his case before learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur. Thus, the case of the Opposite Parties has gone unrebutted before learned Judge, Family Court.

6. Since no material is available on record with regard to income of the Petitioner, learned Judge, Family Court making a guess work that the Petitioner was earning Rs.30,000/- per

// 3 // Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Jul-2023 13:00:18 month and he has landed properties, passed the impugned judgment. The quantum of maintenance awarded in favour of the Opposite Parties also does not appear to be unreasonable taking into consideration the cost of living prevailing at the relevant time as well as their requirement and the capability of the Petitioner to pay the same. Although learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is leading a precarious life and does not have sufficient means to pay the maintenance, the same cannot be a ground to remit the matter back to learned Judge, Family Court for fresh consideration as the Petitioner cannot be allowed to patch up the lacuna before learned Judge, Family Court. There is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause to file written statement and file documents in support of his case before learned Judge, Family Court.

7. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment under Annexure-1.

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

9. Interim order dated 12th April, 2018 passed in Misc. Case No.128 of 2018 stands vacated.

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

                                                                              (K.R. Mohapatra)
               ms                                                                   Judge