Khagendra Sethi vs Annapurna Sethi And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2620 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                              RPFAM No. 222 of 2017
               Khagendra Sethi                       ....      Petitioner
                                           Mr. Balaram Nayak, Advocate
                                      -versus-
               Annapurna Sethi and another           ....   Opp. Parties
                                   Mr. Himanshu Bhusan Dash, Advocate
                      CORAM:
                     JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                 ORDER

Order No. 31.03.2023 RPFAM No. 222 of 2017 & RPFAM No. 208 of 2017

7. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 22nd July, 2017 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Cr.P No.76 of 2012 is under challenge in these RPFAMs, whereby the Husband (Petitioner in RFAM No.222 of 2017) has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.4,000/- per month to the Wife and minor daughter (Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 in RPFAM No.208 of 2017) respectively from the date of application, i.e., 26th March, 2012.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties are described as per their status before learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore.

5. Relationship between the parties is not disputed. Wife along with minor daughter filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that learned Judge, Family Court, while adjudicating the matter has categorically held that gross

// 2 //

salary of the Petitioner for the month of August, 2014 was only Rs.57,926/-. The Opposite Parties are staying in the native house of the Petitioner. Learned Judge, Family Court though took the same into consideration, but directed the Petitioner to pay maintenance, at the aforesaid rate.

6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that at para-39 of his cross-examination, the Petitioner categorically stated that his gross salary comes around Rs.65,000/- per month, as he is a permanent Lecturer in Revenshaw University. This aspect was not taken into consideration by learned Judge, Family Court, while determining the quantum of maintenance. Hence, the quantum of maintenance warrants enhancement.

7. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that learned Judge, Family Court took note of the gross salary of the Petitioner for the month of August, 2014, which was Rs.57,926/-, but the Petitioner himself in his cross- examination has admitted that his gross salary comes around Rs.60,000/- per month. His evidence was recorded on 15th March, 2017. It, however, reveals from the record that the Opposite Parties are staying in the native house of the Petitioner. It is also alleged that the Petitioner is not allowed to enter into his native house.

8. Taking into consideration that the Opposite Parties are entitled to 1/4th of the income of the Petitioner in view of the ratio decided in the case of Kalyan Dey Choudhury Vs. Rita Dey Choudhury Nee Nandy, reported in AIR 2017 SC 2383, this Court finds that learned Judge, Family Court has committed

// 3 //

no error in determining the quantum of maintenance, as stated above.

9. Accordingly, both the RPFAMs are dismissed.

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