Orissa High Court
Bijay Nayak vs Chandrakanti Nayak & ... Opposite ... on 21 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM NO.283 of 2023
(An application U/S. 397 read with Section 401 CrPC).
Bijay Nayak ... Petitioner
-versus-
Chandrakanti Nayak & ... Opposite Parties
Another
For Petitioner : Mr. S.C. Mekap, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. A.S. Paul, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:21.01.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. The short grievance of the petitioner-husband
in this revision petition is as to the quantum of
maintenance as ordered by the learned Judge, Family
Court, Khurda by the impugned judgment passed on
16.05.2023 in Criminal Petition No.124 of 2021 by
which the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of
Rs.8,000/- per month to the OPs w.e.f 07.04.2021 in
an application U/S. 125 of the CrPC.
2. In support of his contention, Mr. Sarat
Chandra Mekap, learned counsel for the petitioner
draws attention of the Court to the evidence of the
OPW.1 and submits that the monthly income of the
petitioner is Rs.12,000/- per month and he is a
contractual employee and thereby, directing him to
pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month, out of such
amount would not only be harsh, but also is exorbitant
and, therefore, the quantum of maintenance may
kindly be reduced in the interest of justice. Mr. Amlan
Shakti Paul, learned counsel for the OPs, however,
while supporting the impugned judgment submits that
the direction to pay Rs.4,000/- to each to the OPs-wife
& son cannot be considered as exorbitant or excessive
and, therefore, the revision petition merits no
consideration.
3. After having considered the rival submission
upon perusal of record, since the present dispute is
only confined to the quantum of maintenance, it would
be apposite to refer to the evidence of OPW1
(petitioner-husband) as filed under Annexure-5,
wherein the present OP-wife has elicited from the
mouth of the husband that he used to receive the
salary in cash by hand and is receiving Rs.400/- per
day as wages. Further, the OP-wife has unsuccessfully
suggested to the husband for receiving Rs.20,000/-
per month as salary. Notwithstanding to the above
facts, the learned trial Court by the impugned
judgment has taken the salary of the petitioner-
husband @Rs.20,000/- per month and accordingly,
ordered to the present petitioner to pay Rs.8,000/- per
month to the OPs-wife & son which in the
circumstance appears to be exorbitant and excessive
and contrary to the weight of evidence. In the
aforesaid backdrop and admitted fact of the income of
the petitioner-husband @ Rs.12,000/- per month, it
would be just and proper to direct him to pay a sum of
Rs.6,000/- (Rs. 4,000/- to the OP-wife and Rs.2,000/-
to the OP-son) per month as maintenance.
4. In the result, the present revision petition
stands allowed in part on contest, but in the
circumstance, there is no order as to costs. The
impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated
above.
It is made clear that the aforesaid
maintenance amount is payable w.e.f. the date of
application i.e. 07.04.2021 and the arrear amount be
paid to the OPs by way of cheque/bank draft in five
equal monthly installments commencing w.e.f.
01.02.2025.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 21st day of January, 2025/S.Sasmal
Date: 22-Jan-2025 11:08:08
