Orissa High Court
(An Application U/S. 19(4) Of The Family ... vs Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo ... Opposite Party on 5 February, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO.278 of 2023
(An application U/S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984 r/w. Section 401 of CrPC).
Nibedita @ Nivedita ... Petitioner
Sahoo
-versus-
Bibhuti Bhusan Sahoo ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. L. Sarangi, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. P. Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:05.02.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. The sole grievance of the petitioner-wife is to
the quantum of maintenance as granted to her by the
impugned judgment dated 17.05.2023 passed by the
learned Judge, Family Court-II, Bhubaneswar in CrP
No.185 of 2017 directing the OP-husband to pay a
sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards her
maintenance in an application U/S.125 of the CrPC
w.e.f. 23.09.2017.
By the said impugned judgment, the learned
trial Court has passed order directing the OP-husband
to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the daughter
of the parties till she attains majority on 27.01.2022.
2. Heard, Mr. Lingaraj Sarangi, learned counsel
for the petitioner-wife and Mr. Pratik Dash, learned
counsel for the OP-husband and perused the record.
Both the parties by inviting attention of the Court to
the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment
submit that the admitted gross salary of the OP-
husband is Rs.1,48,200/- and net salary of
Rs.75,649/-, however, Mr. Sarangi submits that since
the quantum of maintenance as granted to the
petitioner-wife is meager, the OP-husband may kindly
be directed to pay some more amount, at least 1/4th of
the net salary. On the contrary, Mr. Pratik Dash,
learned counsel for the OP-husband submits that not
only the petitioner-wife is enjoying the residential
property of the OP-husband, but also the petitioner-
wife has been well taken care of by the OP-husband in
providing comfort by purchasing a car in her name and
providing sufficient amount for her maintenance and,
therefore, the claim for enhancement of maintenance
merits no consideration.
3. After having considered the rival submission
upon perusal of record, it is not in dispute that the
gross salary of the OP-husband is Rs.1,48,200/- and
net salary is Rs.75,649/- per month at the time of
passing of the impugned judgment, but fact remains
that the petitioner-wife has been awarded a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month for her monthly maintenance.
It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-wife is
residing in a two-storey building owned by the OP-
husband since July, 2016. On the contrary, the OP-
husband is taking a plea that since his old aged
parents are dependent on him, he cannot contribute
more towards the maintenance of his wife, but facts
remains that although such plea has been taken by
the husband, but it was not substantiated by him
producing any document to the effect that his old
ailing parents are suffering from any ailment and they
were completely dependent on him. It is also not
disputed that the petitioner-wife is unable to maintain
herself. Law is equally well settled that it is the duty
and responsibility of the husband to maintain his wife,
who is unable to maintain herself, but what should be
the appropriate amount for maintenance of such wife
which is certainly commensurate to the standard of
living and social standing of the husband in the
society.
4. In this case, even if taking the net salary
of the OP-husband at Rs.75,649/- and he having not
been able to substantiate as to how he is spending
such income and thereby, he being able to share more
amount than the Rs.15,000/- to wife and daughter,
the impugned order granting paltry sum of
maintenance to the petitioner-wife is liable to be
interfered with. However, taking into account the
present market index and the cost of living, so also
the social standing of the parties vis-à-vis the
admitted income of the husband, it would be
considered just and proper, if the maintenance of the
petitioner-wife is further enhanced by Rs.5,000/-
which shall be payable w.e.f. the date of application
since 23.09.2017.
5. In the result, this revision petition is
accordingly, allowed in part, but in the circumstance,
there is no order as to costs. The impugned order
granting maintenance to the petitioner-wife is only
modified to the extent indicated above. It is made
clear that the maintenance amount as granted to the
daughter by the impugned order remains unaltered.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 5th day of February, 2025/S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
