Susanta Kumar Das vs Ritanjali Behera And Another .... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2750 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2750 Ori
Judgement Date : 20 January, 2025

Orissa High Court

Susanta Kumar Das vs Ritanjali Behera And Another .... ... on 20 January, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                   RPFAM No.387 of 2024

  (In the matter of an application Under Section-19 of
  Family Court Act read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973)


   Susanta Kumar Das                      ....            Petitioner
                          -versus-
   Ritanjali Behera and another    ....           Opposite Parties


   For Petitioner       :   Mr. B. Tripathy, Advocate

   For Opposite         : None
   Party


       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

    DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:20.01.2025(ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

1. This present revision by Petitioner-father

seeks to challenge the impugned order dated

19.11.2024 passed in Criminal Proceeding No. 283 of

2019 by which the learned Judge, Family Court-II,

Bhubaneswar has directed the Petitioner to pay a sum

of Rs. 3,000/- per month to OP No.2-cum-daughter

w.e.f 04.11.2019 while refusing to grant maintenance

to OP No.1-cum-wife in an application U/S. 125 Cr.P.C.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr. Byomakesh

Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner while not

disputing the relationship between the parties only

submits for a direction to keep the amount of

maintenance in the name of OP No.2-daughter in fixed

deposit, otherwise the Petitioner apprehends such

amount to be misappropriated by the mother. Further,

Mr. Tripathy submits that since the Petitioner is not

having any permanent service and earning variable

amount in a month and sometimes he earns Rs.

20,000/- per month but sometimes, he does not earn

anything and, therefore, the quantum of maintenance

may kindly be reduced.

3. After having considered the submission as

advanced for the Petitioner and taking into account the

grounds of challenge as put forth by the Petitioner in

this revision upon going through the impugned

judgment, it appears that the learned trial Court in the

sub-paragraph of paragraph No.7 has inter-alia

observed the following:-

"7. The Opp. Party in his affidavit of assets and liabilities states that he is working in Livfast Battery Pvt. Ltd as field service Engineer and earning Rs. 19,000/- per month but no document was filed by him. Except this he has no other source of income. His old aged mother is dependant on him for whom he is spending Rs.7000/- per month. But he has not disclosed the income of the petitioner No.1 in his affidavit of assets and liabilities."

4. It is further found from the impugned

judgment that the present OP No.1-cum-mother of OP

No.2 is in job and her income is Rs. 12,000/- per

month. It is also not in dispute that the law in this

regard of maintenance to minor children has been

succinctly stated in paragraphs-91 and 92 of the

celebrated judgment in Rajnesh Vrs. Neha and

another; (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Apex Court

has inter-alia stated the following:-

"91. The living expenses of the child would include expenses for food, clothing, residence, medical expenses, education of children. Extra coaching classes or any other vocational training courses to complement the basic education must be factored in, while awarding child support. Albeit, it should be a reasonable

amount to be awarded for extracurricular/ coaching classes, and not an overly extravagant amount which may be claimed.

92. Education expenses of the children must be normally borne by the father. If the wife is working and earning sufficiently, the expenses may be shared proportionately between the parties."

5. In this case, it appears from the record

that both the parents are working and the minor

daughter has been awarded @ Rs. 3,000/- per month

for her maintenance. In the aforesaid circumstance,

when the standard of living of the parents are taken

into account on their admitted income, this Court

considers it appropriate to say that the direction to the

father to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as his share for the

maintenance of minor daughter cannot be said as

excessive or exorbitant. It is, however, prayed by the

learned counsel for the Petitioner to direct for the

payment of the maintenance amount to be paid to the