Orissa High Court
Niranjan Nayak vs Manorama Nayak on 21 June, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jun-2023 19:16:31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No. 03 OF 2018
Niranjan Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr.Saroj Kumar Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
Manorama Nayak .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 21.06.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. The Petitioner in this RPFAM seeks to assail the
judgment dated 27th November, 2017 passed by learned Judge,
Family Court, Khurda in Criminal Petition No.71 of 2017,
whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of
Rs.3000/- per month to the Opposite Party from the date of
filing of the application i.e., from 9th March, 2017.
3. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits
that relationship between the parties is not disputed. Admittedly,
the Petitioner is a daily wage earner and there are four persons
depending upon him for sustenance.
4. It is also submitted that learned Judge, Family Court,
Khurda while scrutinizing the evidence has categorically
observed that the Petitioner was a daily wage earner. But, by
assessing the income of the Petitioner at Rs.9,000/- per month,
the impugned order has been passed. It is his submission that the
Petitioner is not getting work every day. Thus, assessment of
his income of Rs.9,000/- per month by learned Judge, Family
Court is speculative and is without any basis. Hence, he prays
for setting aside the impugned order.
Page 1 of2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
// 2 //
Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jun-2023 19:16:31 5. Considering the submission made by learned counsel
for the Petitioner and on the perusal of the record, it appears that
marital relationship between the parties is not disputed. It is
also not disputed that the Petitioner is a daily wage earner.
Although the Opposite Party had stated in her evidence that the
Petitioner was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, learned Judge,
Family Court, Khurda disbelieved the same and assessed the
income of the Petitioner taking into consideration the minimum
wages fixed by the Government of Odisha at the relevant
period. Assessment of quantum of maintenance cannot be made
on arithmetical calculation. In absence of any concrete evidence,
learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda has to make a guesswork
and assess the income and fix the quantum of maintenance. As
such, the assessment of income of the Petitioner cannot be held
to unreasonable or without any basis. There is also no material
on record to show that four persons are depending upon the
Petitioner.
6. Further, taking into consideration the materials available
on record, learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda has directed the
Petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the
Opposite Party, which appears to be reasonable. It further
appears that although the RPFAM was filed since 2nd January,
2018, no step was taken to get the matter listed till date.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I am not inclined
to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the RPFAM
stands dismissed.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
Rojalin (K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
