Orissa High Court
Sidhartha Kumar Pradhan vs Swati Patasani & Another ... Opposite ... on 10 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.303 of 2023
Sidhartha Kumar Pradhan ... Petitioner
Mr. K. Pradhan, Advocate
-versus-
Swati Patasani & Another ... Opposite Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER(ORAL)
10.01.2025
I.A. No. 490 of 2024, RPFAM No.303 of
2023 & I.A. No.372 of 2023
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
not press the I.A. No.490 of 2024. Accordingly, the
I.A. No.490 of 2024 stands disposed of as not pressed.
3. This present revision by the petitioner-
husband seeks to challenge the impugned judgment
dated 12.05.2023 passed in Criminal Petition No. 347
of 2018 by which the learned Judge, Family Court,
Khurda has directed the petitioner-husband to pay OP
No.1-wife at enhanced maintenance @ Rs.7,500/- per
month and @ Rs.12,500/- per month to OP No.2-son,
total Rs.20,000/- as a monthly maintenance w.e.f.
29.11.2018 in an application U/S. 127 CrPC.
It is, however, clarified that the learned
Judge, Family Court, Khurda previously by an order
passed on 19.01.2017 in Crl.P. No.57 of 2014 has
directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- to the OP No.1-wife and Rs.2,500/- to the
OP No.2-son, all total Rs.7,500/- per month w.e.f.
30.05.2014 in an application U/S.125 CrPC.
4. In the course of hearing, Mr. Kabiraj Pradhan,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without
any rhyme and reason, the learned trial Court has
granted enhanced maintenance amount to the OPs-
wife and son, but the petitioner-husband is not
earning so much so that he can pay such maintenance
amount at enhanced rate. Further, Mr. Pradhan
informs this Court that the petitioner-husband is
regularly paying the maintenance amount to the OPs
@ Rs. 7,500/- per month in terms of the order passed
by the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda in Criminal
Petition No.57 of 2014, however, the learned Judge
Family Court, Khurda ignoring these facts and without
appreciating the evidence on record properly has
enhanced the maintenance of the OPs and thereby,
the impugned order is liable to be interfered with in
this revision petition.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking
into account the claim of the petitioner, this Court does
not wish to pass any order without seeking response
from the OP. Issue notice on admission to the OP No.1
through Speed Post/Registered Post with AD by fixing
a short returnable date. Requisites for issuance of
notice to the OP No.1 shall be filed within three
working days.
6. As an interim measure, there shall be stay
operation of the impugned judgment dated
12.05.2023 passed in Criminal Petition No. 347 of
2018 subject to condition the petitioner paying @
Rs.6,000/- to the OP No.1-wife per month and @
Rs.4,000/- per month to the OP No.2-son regularly in
addition to paying a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as a lump
sum to the OPs on or before 17th January, 2025
towards a part of the arrear maintenance.
7. List this matter on 20th February, 2025.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S. Sasmal
