Kishor Chandra Kerketta vs Sushama Khadia
2023 Latest Caselaw 6033 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                RPFAM NO. 21 OF 2023
                 Kishor Chandra Kerketta               ....        Petitioner
                                            Mr. S. Chakravarthy, Advocate
                                         -versus-
                 Sushama Khadia                        .... Opp. Party



                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

                                         ORDER

Order No.                               15.05.2023

  1.        1.      This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Judgment dated 5th November, 2022 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.04 of 2017 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month to the Opposite Party-Wife from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 8th March, 2017.

3. Mr. Chakravarthy, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner only assails the quantum of maintenance directed to be paid by him. It is his submission that learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur taking into consideration the gross salary of the Petitioner has fixed the quantum of maintenance. Hence, it requires consideration. The Petitioner has his old and ailing parents, widow sister and elder brother of his father and his wife to be maintained by him. The Petitioner is getting a net salary of about Rs. 40,000/- per month after deduction. Thus, it is very difficult on the part of the Petitioner to pay maintenance, as

// 2 //

directed. As such, he prays for reconsideration of the quantum of maintenance.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that no material has been placed on record with regard to net income of the Petitioner. It is the submission of Mr. Chakravarthy, learned counsel that net salary of the Petitioner can be ascertained from the affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by him. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that such a contention was not raised before learned Judge, Family Court, Sambalpur nor any document to that effect was filed during adjudication of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

5. In that view of the matter, this Court while exercising power under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 should not accept further evidence to reassess the quantum of maintenance. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

6. Accordingly, the RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

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

(K.R. Mohapatra) bks Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-May-2023 18:11:42