Orissa High Court
Pravat Kumar Mohapatra vs Pradyut Priyadarshan ... Opposite ... on 22 November, 2024
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.312 of 2023
(In the matter of application under Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 401 of
CrPC).
Pravat Kumar Mohapatra ... Petitioner
-versus-
Pradyut Priyadarshan ... Opposite Party
Mohapatra
For Petitioner : Mr. P. Das, Advocate
For Opposite Party :
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:22.11.2024(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This revision is directed against the
impugned judgment dated 29.07.2023 passed in CRP
No.92 of 2021 by which the learned Judge, Family
Court, Puri has directed the revisional-petitioner to pay
a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the OP-minor child
towards monthly maintenance w.e.f 01.12.2021.
2. It is undisputed that the OP-minor son is
the legitimate son of the revisional-petitioner and his
wife Saibismita Priyadarshini Aich under whose custody
the child resides, but she does not claim any
maintenance for herself. Due to dissension, the wife
and husband (revisional-petitioner) although married,
are living separately, but the son-OP is staying with his
mother. Both husband and wife are employed and are
serving as Assistant Manager in Punjab National Bank
and Manager in Canara Bank respectively. On the
aforesaid background, an application for maintenance
for the son being represented by his mother guardian
has been filed, which came to be registered in CRP
No.92 of 2021 which was accordingly allowed and the
learned Judge, Family Court, Puri by assessing the
requirement of the son to be at Rs.25,000/- directed
the revisional petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as
his share for the maintenance of his son. Being
aggrieved with such order, the present revision has
been filed by the revisional-petitioner-cum-father of OP.
3. In the course of hearing of the revision, Mr.
Parsuaram Das, learned counsel for the petitioner by
highlighting the age of the petitioner submits that it is
quite exorbitant to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the
maintenance of a child aged about two years, but the
learned Judge, Family Court, Puri irrationally has
awarded such amount to the OP-son and that too, the
mother guardian being the Manager of Canara Bank
and drawing salary more than what the petitioner-
father is drawing has claimed maintenance in the guise
of maintenance to the son only to harass the revisonal
petitioner. Accordingly, Mr. Das prays to set aside the
impugned order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the
petitioner upon perusal of record, it cannot be forgotten
that the age of the child must be around four years
since his age was two years at the time of filing of
application in the year 2021. It is also an admitted fact
that both mother and father are Bank employees and
drawing good salary. The learned trial Court, has,
however, by taking into account the admission of the
revisional-petitioner assessed his monthly gross salary
at Rs.65,334/-. What is more important is the
determination of the requirement of the OP-son for
maintenance, who is admittedly a dependent child and
whose mother is also employed with whom he is
residing.
5. In deciding the maintenance for a child,
one should not forget the mode or manner in which
maintenance is to be assessed for child was considered
by the Apex Court in its judgment in Rajnesh Vrs.
Neha and another; (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the
criteria was laid down for determining the quantum of
maintenance for minor children in paragraphs-91 and
92 thereof which are extracted as under:-
"91. The living expenses of the child would
include expenses for food, clothing,
residence, medical expenses, education of
children. Extra coaching classes or any other
vocational training courses to complement
the basic education must be factored in, while
awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a
reasonable amount to be awarded for
extracurricular/coaching classes, and not an
overly extravagant amount which may be
claimed.
92. Education expenses of the children must
be normally borne by the father. If the wife is
working and earning sufficiently, the
expenses may be shared proportionately
between the parties."
6. The issue with regard to maintenance of
minor child had also been come up before the Apex
Court in Neha Tyagi Vrs. Lieutenant Colonel
Deepak Tyagi; (2022) 3 SCC 86, wherein while
upholding the decree of divorce granted by the learned
trial Court, it is held by the Apex Court that even after
the divorce, the husband is not absolved of his liability
and responsibility to maintain child/son till he attains
the age of majority. In a dispute between the husband
and wife, the child should not be made to suffer. In the
aforesaid decision, the Apex Court has further held in
paragraph-6 as under:-
"However, at the same time, the respondent-
husband cannot be absolved from his liability
and responsibility to maintain his son Pranav
till he attains the majority. Whatever be the
dispute between the husband and the wife, a
child should not be made to suffer. The
liability and responsibility of the father to
maintain the child continues till the child/son
attains the age of majority. It also cannot be
disputed that the son Pranav has a right to be
maintained as per the status of his father. Xx
xx"
7. It is, therefore, clear that the father is not
absolved of his duty to maintain his own son, but when
the father and mother are both earning, the expenses
of the child has to be borne by both of them. This
Court, however, wishes to address to the submission as
advanced for the petitioner that Rs.10,000/- is too high
for a child of two years for its maintenance
requirement, but the child in this case must be around
four years or more. Further, law is equally settled that
the children are to be maintained as per the standard of
their parents. It cannot be disputed while taking into
account the standard of the parents in this case, that
the child may be admitted in a private school where the
tuition fees would not be less than Rs.5,000/-, besides
its requirement for other things like food, clothing,
medical expenses, extra coaching classes so also
training for extracurricular activities and in that event,
the child would require more amount.
8. In the present case, the learned Judge,
Family Court, Puri has assessed the monthly
requirement of the child at Rs.25,000/- per month for
schooling, health, food and clothing etc., but since
mother is getting more salary than the father, the
learned Judge, Family Court, Puri accordingly calculated
the share of father at Rs.10,000/- out of the amount of
Rs.25,000/- required for maintenance of the child by
directing the father to contribute Rs.10,000/- per
month to his son as monthly maintenance of the child
w.e.f. 01.12.2021 till the child attains the age of
majority. Hence, the direction to the revisional
petitioner to pay such amount to his minor son in the
circumstance does not appear to be erroneous or
arbitrary or illegal.
9. In the result, the revision petition being
devoid of merit stands dismissed, but without any
costs.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Reason: AuthenticationOrissa High Court, Cuttack,
Location: High Court of Orissa
Dated the 22nd day of November, 2024/Subhasmita
Date: 22-Nov-2024 16:07:11
