Bharati Behera @ Pradhan And vs Prasant Kumar Pradhan
2023 Latest Caselaw 12426 Ori

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 MATA No.214 of 2022

             Bharati Behera @ Pradhan and             ....          Appellants
            another

                                             Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate
                                         -versus-

            Prasant Kumar Pradhan                     ....         Respondent

                                                      Mr. U. Sahoo, Advocate
                    CORAM:
                                JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
                                JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
                                          ORDER

11.10.2023 Order No.

12. 1. Mr. Rath, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of appellant-wife. He submits, impugned is judgment dated 29th August, 2022 made by the Family Court under section 25 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. By it there was negligible increase of monthly maintenance respectively to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- for appellants (wife and son).

2. He draws attention to order dated 9th August, 2023 made by the first Division Bench to point out therefrom, net pay of respondent- husband as on April, 2022 was Rs.2,15,171/-. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy, reported in (2017) 14 SCC 200. He submits, the Supreme Court accepted grant of maintenance at 25% of net salary awarded by the High Court at Rs.23,000/- but in circumstances of appellant (husband) therein having got remarried, reduced it to

// 2 //

Rs.20,000/-. He submits further, even the directed maintenance under impugned judgment is in arrears from February, 2023.

3. On query from Court Mr. Rath submits, the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, paragraph 129 had declared the law on requirement of filing affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities as per enclosures I, II and III of the judgment.

4. Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent- husband. He submits, his client is taking good care of the son in every way possible.

5. We are distressed by the submission of non-compliance of the direction by impugned judgment for payment of maintenance. Particularly so because now there has been disclosure of April, 2022 net salary of respondent-husband at Rs.2,15,171/-. We adjourn hearing of the appeal to enable respondent-husband to make good the arrears.

6. List on 17th October, 2023.

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

Jyoti Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 11-Oct-2023 17:20:41