Orissa High Court
(An Application U/S. 19(4) Of The Family ... vs Subhashree Subhasmita ... Opposite ... on 30 April, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO.195 of 2024
(An application U/S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984).
Jiten Kumar Ray @ Roy ... Petitioner
-versus-
Subhashree Subhasmita ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. B.C. Parija, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Ms. D. Dhall, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:30.04.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This revision is directed against the impugned
judgment dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Nayagarh in Crl.M.P. No. 201 of
2022 directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of
Rs.6,000/- per month to OP-wife w.e.f. 05.11.2022
towards her monthly maintenance in an application
U/S.125 of CrPC.
2. Facts not in dispute are that the petitioner
and the OP are related to each other as husband and
wife and their marriage was solemnized on
24.05.2021, but due to some dissention, the OP-wife
started living separately from her husband in her
paternal home and thereafter, she filed an application
U/S.125 of CrPC against the petitioner-husband for
grant of maintenance which came to be registered in
Crl.M.P. No. 201 of 2022. Accordingly, both the parties
filed their disclosure affidavit stating therein their
assets and liabilities. Further, the learned trial Court
allowed both the parties to lead evidence and the
petitioner-husband examined himself only and
exhibited three documents under Ext. A to Ext. B/a as
against the oral evidence of the OP-wife and one Gouri
Dei as PWs.1 & 2, but no documentary evidence has
been led by the OP-wife.
3. On conclusion of the hearing, the learned trial
Court upon analysis of evidence has passed the
impugned judgment directing the petitioner-husband
to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to OP-wife towards her
maintenance. Being aggrieved with the quantum of
maintenance, the petitioner-husband has preferred
this revision.
4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bikash Chandra
Parija, learned counsel for the petitioner-husband
while not disputing the relationship between the
parties, however, seriously assails the quantum of
maintenance as ordered by the learned trial Court by
inter alia contending that although the petitioner's
income is found to be around Rs.20,000/- per month
and that of the OP-wife is to some extent by way of
her employment as Master Book Keeper (MBK), but
ignoring such fact, the learned trial Court has passed
the impugned judgment without taking into
consideration the income of the OP-wife and thereby,
the quantum of maintenance as ordered by the
learned trial Court needs to be modified. Mr. Parija
accordingly, prays to reduce the quantum of
maintenance from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.4,000/-.
4.1. On the other hand, Ms. Dipti Dhall, learned
counsel for the OP-wife, however, seriously submits
that not only the petitioner-husband has failed to
prove the income of the OP-wife, but also the OP-wife
in fact is not gainfully employed in any of the
organization and drawing any monthly salary to
maintain herself and she, thereby, depending on the
income of her mother as her father had already died
around three years back, the quantum of maintenance
as awarded to the OP-wife by the learned trial Court is
just and proper and needs no interference.
Accordingly, Ms. Dhall prays to dismiss the revision.
5. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, this Court finds the learned
trial Court to have analyzed the evidence and passed
the impugned order and, in such order, the learned
trial Court has inter alia taken into consideration the
avocation and income of both the parties in paragraph
18 which reads as under:-
"18. On the basis of the discussion above and
on perusing the asset and liability statement of
both petitioner and OP which was filed by them
on 16.1.2023 and 22.7.2023 it is evident that
the OP Jiten Kumar Roy is a business man and
in his asset and liability statement he has shown
that he has a Paint Shop at Rajsunakhala and
he is the sole proprietor of that paint shop
which employees two persons and he has also
stated in his asset and liability statement about
his annual turn over that of being Rs.5,07,015/-
and his gross profit is Rs.4,94,515/- and his net
income is Rs.2,31,345/- and he also pays
income tax of Rs.lOOO/- and he has also shown
his monthly expenditure to be Rs.21,930/- per
month. He stated that his
education/qualification to be a +2 Science and
he claims that his wife possessed the degree of
of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed). Compare to
this the asset and liability statement of the
petitioner Subhashree Subhasmita who has
stated her educational qualification to be +3
and that the occupation of her husband she has
shown to be business. She has started that her
monthly expenditure is Rs.40,000/- which is
much more than that of her OP husband. She
has remained silent about her additional
qualifications that of BCA and B.Ed. She stated
the educational qualification of her husband to
be a Graduate. On such asset and liability
statements one thing is emerging that both side
have tried to suppress certain things and
divulged a little true facts about their actual
expenditures. Therefore, not much can be relied
on such asset and liability statements furnished
by both the parties. It is also evident that and
consistent that the marital life between the
petitioner and the OP ran into trouble very soon
after their marriage. The cause attributed by
the petitioner is demand for dowry by the OP
and his family members and she being treated
unfairly due to her black complexion by the OP
and his family members. The OP on the other
hand has stated that his wife has voluntarily left
his house and she is not entitled to any
maintenance. The OP has produced some proof
that the petitioner has qualified and in gainfully
employed as a Master Book Keeper under a
Grampanchayat. The OP has produced some
documents obtained under the Right to
Information Act from the Public Information
Officer cum Addl. B.D.O. Bhapur that the
petitioner Subhasree Subhasmita has secured
highest mark among the candidates for the
Master Book Keeper(MBK) under the
Baghuapalli Panchayat (Ext.A). The OP has not
produced any document that the petitioner has
joined in that post. Some evident is there that
the petitioner is qualified as a Master Book
Keeper at village-Baghuapalli. This OP claims
that he borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-
from his mother in law(PW-2). He also produced
his account statements of State Bank of India,
Sagargaon Branch Ext.B and Ext.B/a that an
amount of Rs.7,00,000/- has been deducted
from his bank account in payment of that loan
amount including interest remitted to the
petitioner and her mother. It is not clear why a
business man will borrow money from his in
laws when the OP has a good income out of his
business of a hardware and colour shop. In
para-17 of the cross examination of OPW-1 in
which he has admitted that his mother in law
has filed a complaint petition u/s 138 of the
N.I.Act in 1CC case No. 62 of 2022 before the
Court of SDJM., Nayagarh. It is not clear if the
claim of the OP is that he has repaid the entire
debt which he has availed from his mother in
law then why a case u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is filed against him by his own
mother in law. Obviously, there is some
subsisting debt which this OP allegedly owes to
his mother in law which is to be proved or
enforced in the court of law. So the OP trying to
give a colour that he has borrowed money and
returned with interest to his mother in law and
petitioner wife is not of much value to him when
he is facing criminal prosecution for a debt and
bouncing of cheque under the Negotiable
Instrument Act. It is evident that some financial
loss allegedly has been caused by the OP in
terms of money to the mother of the petitioner
and for that a Complaint case has been
instituted by her (P.W.2) against her own son in
law (OP) by her.
6. On a careful scrutiny of the aforesaid
observation of the learned trial Court, it goes without
saying that the net monthly income of the petitioner
comes around Rs.20,000/- which is also not disputed
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the fact
needs to be considered is the education and
qualification of the OP-wife, who has also prospect to
earn because she is admittedly having qualification of
B.A. B.Ed. It is, however, claimed by the petitioner-
husband that the OP-wife was gainfully employed as
Master Book Keeper (MBK), but the documents which
he has produced before the learned trial Court only
shows the marks secured by the OP-wife for the post of
Master Book Keeper (MBK), but there is absolutely no
evidence to come to a conclusion that the OP-wife is
gainfully employed as Master Book Keeper (MBK).
6. Further, the petitioner-husband has not made it
clear as to whether such post of Master Book Keeper
(MBK) is a permanent post and is on the pay roll of the
Government. On the contrary, it is an established fact
that the petitioner is a businessman and earns his
livelihood from the paint shop. According to his own
disclosure affidavit of the assets and liabilities, his
annual turnover from business is Rs.5,07,000/- and
some odd and out of that, he earns gross profit of
Rs.4,94,000/- and some odd, but he claims that he is
also spending some money on his dependant parents
and towards the salary of the employees employed in
his shop. Be that as it may, the wife is entitled in law to
be maintained by her husband, unless her conduct
excludes out of the purview to get maintenance in
terms of Section 125(4) of CrPC, but that is neither an
issue in this case nor any pleading or evidence has
been led to suggest that the OP-wife is not entitled to
any maintenance in view of the provision of Section
125(4) of CrPC and therefore, the OP-wife being an
unemployed lady and although she having prospect to
earn, this Court considers that she is entitled to be
maintained on the standard commensurate to the
standard of living of her husband and therefore,
awarding a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the OP-wife
is not excessive or exorbitant and the same is in
consonance with facts and law.
7. In the result, the revision being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed, but in the circumstance, there
is no order as to costs.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 30th day of April, 2025/S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-May-2025 12:04:17
