Bikash Nayak vs Bimala Sahoo & Another ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2295 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2295 Ori
Judgement Date : 9 January, 2025

Orissa High Court

Bikash Nayak vs Bimala Sahoo & Another ... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   RPFAM NO.19 of 2024

   (An application U/S. 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984).


      Bikash Nayak                   ...                Petitioner
                              -versus-

      Bimala Sahoo & Another         ...          Opposite Parties

      For Petitioner           : Mr. K.C. Rajguru, Advocate

      For Opposite Parties     : Mr. R.B. Mishra, Advocate


          CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  F       DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:09.01.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This revision by the petitioner-husband

challenges the impugned judgment dated 07.11.2023

passed in Criminal Petition No. 07 of 2023 by which

the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda has directed

the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-

each to the OP No.-1-wife and OP No.-2-daughter,

total Rs.10,000/- in an application U/S. 125 CrPC.

2. In the course of hearing, learned counsel for

both the parties without disputing the status of the

parties only argues in respect to the quantum of

maintenance. Accordingly, Mr. Kishore Chandra

Rajguru, learned counsel for the petitioner argues and

submits that the learned trial Court by doing some

guess work has assessed the income of the petitioner-

husband not less than Rs. 20,000/- per month and

thereby, ordered to the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/-

each to the wife and daughter, all total Rs.10,000/-

per month, however, the petitioner-husband being a

driver, his earning cannot be taken at Rs.20,000/-, but

at best his income could be assessed at Rs.14,000/- to

Rs.15,000/- per month and looking at the

responsibility of the petitioner-husband, he is ready to

pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the OPs @

Rs.3,000/- each to both of them. On the other hand,

Mr. Rajib Bihari Mishra, learned counsel for the OPs

submits that the income of the petitioner-husband is

not less than Rs.40,000/- and the learned trial Court

has rightly assessed the income of the petitioner-

husband and accordingly, directed to pay the

maintenance amount to the OPs, which needs no

interference in this revision.

3. After having considered the rival submission

upon perusal of record, it appears that the learned

trial Court while disposing the criminal petition has

observed inter alia the following in paragraph-11:-

"11. xx xx xx xx Considering his age and the materials on record it is felt that his monthly income will not be less than Rs.20,000/- per month. On the other hand, P.W.1(wife) in her evidence stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter. That statement would be enough to show that she is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter and it would be for O.P. to prove otherwise, which was not done in this case."

A reference of the aforesaid observation of the

learned trial Court, it goes without saying that the

learned trial Court has assessed the income of the

petitioner-husband by doing guess work, but no

concrete evidence has been led by the OP-wife to

establish the income of her husband, however, it is a

fact that the husband works as a driver of a truck,

which has been admitted by the husband in his cross-

examination. Looking at the profession of the

petitioner-husband and the probability of his getting

work, this Court considers that the driver would be

earning at least Rs.15,000/- per month by his