Subrat Khatua vs Sasmita Das
2023 Latest Caselaw 8321 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               RPFAM NO. 134 OF 2019
                 Subrat Khatua                    ....        Petitioner
                                  Mr. Pradeep Kumar Parida, Advocate
                                    -versus-
                 Sasmita Das                      ....     Opp. Party

                      CORAM:
                      JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             31.07.2023
   6.       1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 17th April, 2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in Criminal Proceeding No.119 of 2017 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of application, i.e. 9th October, 2017.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Opposite Party is employed as Gram Rozgar Sebak and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the relevant time. This material aspect was not taken into consideration by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal while adjudicating the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. He further submits that a talk of compromise between the parties is going on and the notice may be issued in the matter, so that the process of settlement of dispute between the parties can be expedited.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the RPFAM was filed on 13th June, 2019. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on

// 2 //

several occasions on the prayer of learned counsel for the Petitioner. At no point of time, learned counsel for the Petitioner made an endeavour to argue the matter on merit.

5. While passing the impugned order, learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal has taken note of the income of Opposite Party while directing the Petitioner to pay maintenance, as aforesaid. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that income of Opposite Party was not taken into consideration, is not correct.

6. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the RPFAM stands dismissed.

(K.R. Mohapatra) bks Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 01-Aug-2023 19:37:52