Karisma Tunga vs Bibekananda Mohanty
2023 Latest Caselaw 2188 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                 RPFAM No. 239 of 2017
             Karisma Tunga                      ....       Petitioner
                               Mr. Prasanna Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                                   -versus-
             Bibekananda Mohanty                ....      Opp. Party

                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             16.03.2023
 3.         1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 4th August, 2017 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in Cr.P No.172 of 2015 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Opposite Party has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Petitioner from the date of order.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner does not have any grievance with regard to quantum of maintenance, but in view of provision of Section 125 (2) Cr.P.C., the award should have been made effective from the date of application unless any special reason assigned by the Court to make the order of maintenance effective from a subsequent date. In the instant case, maintenance has been directed to be paid from the date of order only on the ground that the Opposite Party became disabled in an accident in the year 2002. It is his submission that the same is not the sufficient ground to deny maintenance to the Petitioner from the date of application. Evidence has been led by the Petitioner that the Opposite Party was working in Voda Phone Company and was

// 2 //

earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the relevant time. He is also owner of a four wheeler (car) bearing registration No.OR-02- BD-4300. In a claim case filed by the Opposite Party, learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1.65 lakh in his favour. Apart from that, the Opposite Party is getting pension of Rs.300/- per month under Madhu Pension Scheme and 10 Kg. Rice with effect from 2005. Therefore, he is capable of paying maintenance from the date of application. These materials aspects although have been discussed by learned Family Court, but were not considered while passing the impugned direction for payment of maintenance. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and to direct the Opposite Party to pay maintenance with effect from the date of application.

4. On perusal of record, it appears that after filing of the RPFAM neither any step was taken to remove the defect nor was any step taken for getting the matter listed for admission. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel, however, submits that due to inadvertence, the matter could not be listed for admission earlier.

5. However, in the meantime, more than five and half years have already lapsed. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order impugned herein at this stage. However, the Petitioner, if so advised, may workout her remedy before learned Family Court.

6. The RPFAM is disposed of accordingly.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge s.s.satapathy