Orissa High Court
(An Application U/S. 19(4) Of The Family ... vs Priyadarshini Pati ... Opposite Party on 7 February, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO.417 of 2023
(An application U/S. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act,
1984).
Madan Kumar Satpathy ... Petitioner
-versus-
Priyadarshini Pati ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. A.C. Panda, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. R.C. Ojha, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:07.02.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This revision by the petitioner-husband seeks
to assail the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2023
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela
in Criminal Proceeding No. 05 of 2014 directing the
petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per
month to the OP-wife for her maintenance in an
application U/S.125 of the CrPC.
2. Heard, Mr. Anam Charan Panda, learned
counsel for the petitioner-husband and Mr. Ramesh
Chandra Ojha, learned counsel for the OP-wife in the
matter and perused the record.
3. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned
judgment together with the material placed on record,
it appears to the Court that the relationship between
the parties is never disputed and it is accepted that
the petitioner is the husband of OP, but due to
dissension, the OP has filed an application for grant of
maintenance to her to be paid by the petitioner-
husband. In deciding the matter, the learned trial
Court has assessed the income of the petitioner-
husband by taking into account his admitted net home
take salary at Rs.32,541/- per month, out of the gross
salary of Rs. 45,362/-. It is also not in dispute that the
petitioner-husband has a dependent mother. It is
found from the impugned judgment that the OP-wife
has filed a disclosure affidavit showing her assets and
liabilities in terms of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another; (2021) 2
SCC 324 and in such disclosure affidavit, the OP-wife
has described herself as jobless, but she in her cross-
examination at paragraph-25 has admitted that she was
working in Grihasthi Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Rourkela in an
occasion, and she had stated in an interview that
previously she was working in NDTV. It cannot and
should not be denied that the OP-wife is a Science
Graduate having Post Graduation Diploma in Journalism
and Mass Communication and the learned trial Court
after taking note of these facts has also concluded that
the OP-wife is a well-educated lady and can support
herself financially by doing a suitable job, but at present
the OP-wife is not working anywhere to earn her
livelihood. The aforesaid facts go to show that not only
OP-wife is a well-educated lady, but also she was
previously working in some media houses, however, she
has definite prospect to work and earn for her
sustenance.
4. Law never appreciates those wives, who remain
idle only to saddle the liability of paying maintenance on
the husband by not working or not trying to work
despite having proper and high qualification. It is found
in this case that the OP-wife had earlier worked in some
media houses and she has got definite prospect to work
and earn her livelihood. The intention and objective of
legislature in enacting Section 125 of CrPC is to provide
succor to those wives, who are unable to maintain
themselves and have no sufficient income for their
sustenance. The social objective behind the provision for
grant of maintenance, if considered on the admitted
facts as discussed in this case, it would go to disclose
the wife's need and requirement to be balanced not only
with the income and liability of the husband, but also
has to be considered on the backdrop of the education
and prospect of the wife to earn.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance
and taking into account the admitted income of the
petitioner-husband and balancing it with the requirement
of the petitioner-husband together with his dependent
mother and taking into consideration the responsibility
of the husband to maintain his wife, who in this case at
the time of filing of application for grant of maintenance
was jobless, but she having definite prospect to work
and earn her livelihood, this Court considers that interest
of justice would be best served, if the quantum of
maintenance is reduced by Rs.3,000/- per month.
Accordingly, the petitioner-husband is liable to pay the
maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month to the OP-wife
w.e.f the date of application and the balance arrear
amount be accordingly calculated and paid to the OP-
wife in cash in four bi-monthly installments with 1st
installment commencing from 7th March, 2025.
6. In the result, this revision petition stands
allowed in part on contest, but in the circumstance,
there is no order as to costs. Ergo, the impugned
order is modified to the extent indicated above.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 7th day of February, 2025/S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 10-Feb-2025 10:45:33
