Goutam Charan Malla vs Sasmita Pattanaik And Another .... ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16868 Ori

Orissa High Court

Goutam Charan Malla vs Sasmita Pattanaik And Another .... ... on 20 November, 2024

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                    RPFAM No.01 of 2024

  (In the matter of an application Under Section 401 of
  CrPC r/w Section-19 of Family Court Act)

   Goutam Charan Malla                    ....            Petitioner
                          -versus-
   Sasmita Pattanaik and another ....              Opposite Parties


   For Petitioner       :   Mr. S.Mohapatra, Advocate

   For Opposite         : Mr. H. Mohanty, Advocate
   Parties


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:20.11.2024(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The short grievance of the Petitioner-husband is

for reduction of quantum of maintenance to the OPs-

wife and son.

3. Heard, Mr. Satyajit Mohapatra, learned counsel

for the Petitioner and Mr. Haripad Mohanty, learned

counsel for the Opposite Parties and perused the

record.

4. Before embarking upon the contention and

challenge of the Petitioner on merit, this Court

considers it apt to extract paragraph-6(vi) of the

impugned judgment in which the learned trial Court

while taking the issue of the quantum of maintenance

has assessed the monthly income of the Petitioner-

husband and the same reads as under:-

"6.vi. So far as the quantum is concerned, it is clear that the O.P. has focused more in leading evidence that he has no money to pay. He has not succeeded in his approach. He admits that his father has a tea stall at Nayasadak, Cuttack. He had a tea stall at Patia, Bhubaneswar. So, even if his contention is accepted that during expansion of road his tea stall was broken, still then there is no bar for him to continue with the tea stall business he earlier had at some other place. He has no physical deformity or disability not to earn sufficient. It was the duty of the O.P. to prove his own income. Although it is her claim that her husband runs two snacks shops with tea stalls and is earning Rs.60,000/- P.M. But I hold this is a fantastic statement coming from her especially when she has not proved anything relating to the income of her husband. It was argued for the O.P. that the petitioner has not proved his income. It is not possible in this case. She has claimed Rs.25,000/- for herself and her son. In the fact and circumstances of this case, I must hold that the O.P. is also stating falsehood

concerning his income. He is definitely attempting to hide his income more than revealing. He admits not to have paid any money to his wife in the meantime, after her departure. This proves him to be a negligent husband and father. For the purpose of this case, I would hold that notionally the income of the O.P. to be at least Rs.30,000/- P.M. I also hold and conclude that the petitioners are definitely entitled to get maintenance."

5. The relation between the parties is never

disputed, but the income of the Petitioner-husband as

assessed by the learned trial Court is disputed by the

Petitioner-husband on the ground that he had lost his

avocation in the road widening, but it is not disputed

that he is able bodied man and he knows the trade to

earn inasmuch as he was earlier running a tea stall

and right now, his father is also running a tea stall at

different place. Further, even if the contention of the

Petitioner-husband is taken into consideration that he

had lost his livelihood because the tea stall has been

removed during road widening, but that would not

prevent the Petitioner-husband to do fresh business of

tea stall in a separate place. The Petitioner-husband

has not brought on record any material to indicate

that he is unable to do any business or profession to

earn his livelihood, but in law, he is not only required

to maintain his wife, but also has to shoulder the

responsibility of his son because the husband has got

a solemn duty to maintain his wife and children who

are unable to maintain themselves. In a revisional

proceeding, appreciation of evidence is impermissible,

unless the finding of facts recorded in the impugned

judgment/order is without any evidence or the finding

is so perverse that a prudent man cannot accept the

same. In the present case, on a careful appraisal of

the impugned judgment together with the evidence on

record, this Court does not find any error apparent on

the finding of the learned trial Court that the husband

income is notionally @ Rs.30,000/- per month. When

this Court concurs the finding with regard to income of

the Petitioner-husband, there is no need to interfere

with the quantum of maintenance as awarded to the

OPs-wife and son.

6. In the result, the revision petition being devoid

of merit stands dismissed on contest, but in the

circumstance, without any costs.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 20th of November, 2024/Priyajit

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA