Thursday, 07, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Suraj Kumar Sandil vs Padmabati Bhumji And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 7785 Ori

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7785 Ori
Judgement Date : 18 July, 2023

Orissa High Court
Suraj Kumar Sandil vs Padmabati Bhumji And Another on 18 July, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 19-Jul-2023 17:42:52


                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                               RPFAM No. 278 OF 2017
                                               Suraj Kumar Sandil                     ....       Petitioner
                                                                          Ms. Debadipta Sahoo, Advocate
                                                             on behalf of Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, Advocate
                                                                      -versus-
                                               Padmabati Bhumji and another              ....    Opp. Parties


                                                    CORAM:
                                                    JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                                                     ORDER
                    Order No.                                       18.07.2023
                          3.              1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 22nd August, 2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela in Criminal Proceeding No.114 of 2014 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 towards their maintenance from the date of application, i.e., from 1st November, 2014.

3. Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel being authorized by Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a small time business man and has no sufficient means to pay the amount of maintenance, as directed. He is always ready and willing to lead a happy married life with the Opposite Party No.1. But the Opposite Party No.1 has never cooperated with him. Although the Opposite Party No.1 has alleged that the Petitioner is getting a salary of Rs.22,000/- per month and he has also income from his landed properties, but

Signature Not Verified // 2 // Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jul-2023 17:42:52

no material to that effect was filed. It is submitted that the income of the Petitioner is much less than Rs.22,000/- per month as alleged. This material aspect was lost sight of by learned Judge, Family Court while adjudicating the matter. Hence, this RPFAM has been filed assailing such judgment.

4. Although notices were directed to be issued vide order dated 22nd December, 2017, but due to non-filing of complete requisites, the same could not be issued.

5. Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel, however, prays for an adjournment to file complete requisites for issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties.

6. Since in the meantime, more than five years have already elapsed, this Court feels it proper to delve into the merit of the case to consider the prayer made by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner has not filed any documents with regard to his income. It is only stated that he is a small time business man and he has a meager income. Law is well settled that the income of a party is in his special knowledge and the burden is on him to prove the same. The Petitioner did not file any document with regard to his income or produced any material to that effect. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court had to make a guess work and assess the quantum of maintenance. The amount of maintenance as directed to be paid does not appear to be unreasonable.

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

Signature Not Verified // 3 // Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Jul-2023 17:42:52

9. Accordingly, this RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

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


                                                                            (K.R. Mohapatra)
            ms                                                                    Judge





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter