Family Court Act vs Susil Padhi .... Opposite Party
2025 Latest Caselaw 3850 Ori

Orissa High Court

Family Court Act vs Susil Padhi .... Opposite Party on 11 February, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   RPFAM No.278 of 2024

  (In the matter of an application Under Section-19 of
  Family Court Act, 1989 read with Section 442 of BNSS,
  2023)

   Minakhi @ Meenakshi Padhi            ....           Petitioner
                             -versus-
   Susil Padhi                          ....      Opposite Party


   For Petitioner     :   Ms. S. Shahin, Advocate

   For Opposite       : Mr. B. Dhal, Advocate
   Party


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:11.02.2025(ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

1. The sole grievance of the Petitioner-wife

is against the quantum of maintenance as granted to

her by the learned Judge Family Court, Puri vide

judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed in CRP No.1 of

2022 by which the Opposite Party-husband has been

directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month to

Petitioner-wife as maintenance in an application U/S.

125 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Heard, learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

3. Having gone through the impugned

judgment upon the rival submissions, it appears that

the relationship between the parties is undisputed,

but fact remains that the quantum of maintenance

has been disputed by the Petitioner-wife, however, on

perusal of the evidence on record, it is found that the

Petitioner-wife has not produced any evidence to

validly dispute the monthly income of the OP-

husband @ Rs.12,000/- per month which the learned

trial Court has assessed. It is also not in dispute that

the couple has got two sons who are right now

college going students and in addition, the father of

the OP-husband is a pensioner, being a retired

Government Servant. It is also borne out from the

record that another proceeding under DV Act is also

pending between the parties and same is instituted

by the Petitioner-wife.

4. In the fitness of things, when the

admitted income of the OP-husband is considered on

the face of the present day market index and cost of

living and the entitlement of the Petitioner to lead a

life at par with her husband and the proceeding U/S.

125 being not intended to punish the husband, rather

to prevent the wife or the applicant unable to

maintain themselves from destitution and vagrancy,

this Court considers it to be just and proper, if the

maintenance as awarded to the Petitioner-wife is

increased by Rs.500/-. Accordingly, the order is

modified and the husband is liable to pay Rs.2,000/-

per month to the Petitioner-wife w.e.f the date of

filing of the application.

5. In the result, the RPFAM stands allowed

on contest, but in the circumstance, there is no order

as to costs. The impugned judgment dated

05.01.2024 passed by learned Judge Family Court,

Puri in CRP No.1 of 2022 is modified to the extent

indicated above.

(G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 11th February, 2025/Priyajit

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA