Orissa High Court
Alaka Rani Behera vs Basudev Behera ... Opposite Party on 29 January, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RPFAM No.123 of 2023
(In the matter of application under Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act).
Alaka Rani Behera ... Petitioner
-versus-
Basudev Behera ... Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocate
on behalf of Mr. A.K. Saa,
Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. T.K. Sahu, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.01.2025(ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This revision is directed the impugned
judgment dated 05.01.2023 passed by the learned
Judge, Family Court, Sonepur in Criminal Proceeding
No.06 of 2022 directing the OP to pay a sum of
Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) per month to
the petitioner towards her maintenance in an
application U/S.125 of the CrPC.
2. Heard, Mr. Pulakesh Mohanty, learned
proxy counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Amit Kumar
Saa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tirth
Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the OP and perused
the record.
3. While proceeding to address the contention
of the parties, this Court, however, makes it clear that
the relationship between the parties is not in dispute,
but the quantum of maintenance is challenged by the
petitioner in this revision. It is also not in dispute that
the OP is a Government teacher and is earning
handsome amount, but his monthly income out of
salary has been assessed at Rs.1,05,415/- in the month
of March, 2022. However, the learned trial Court by the
impugned judgment has directed the OP to pay a sum
of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand) per month,
but such order has been passed without elaborating the
requirements/needs, responsibility and liabilities of the
parties. It is also not in dispute that the son of the
parties admittedly resides with OP-father so also the
mother of the OP. It is of course argued and submitted
that since the mother of the OP is a pension holder, the
petitioner may not be shouldering the responsibility of
her maintenance. Be that as it may, since the mother
of the OP is admittedly found to be drawing pension of
Rs.13,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand) per month, it
may not be sufficient for her maintenance and she has
to depend on the income of her son for further need
like medicine, food, shelter etc. and the same has to be
considered commensurate to the standard of living of
her own son. At the same time, the petitioner-wife's
needs has to be considered commensurate to the
standard of living of her husband and in this case, it is
not in dispute that the husband is drawing a gross
salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh)
and there is prospect of his salary revision in future,
but taking into account the present day market index of
living, particularly the cost of living and the entitlement
of the wife to live commensurate to the standard of
living of her husband, it would be just and proper, if the
maintenance as granted to the petitioner-wife is
enhanced by Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) after
taking note of the present day market index and the
cost of living of a person of a stature of the petitioner.
4. In the result, the revision petition stands
allowed on contest, but in the circumstances, there no
order as to costs. Accordingly, the OP-husband is
directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- (Rupees Eighteen
Thousand) per month to the wife-petitioner with effect
from the date of filing of the maintenance application i.e.
22.02.2022. The modified amount of current monthly
maintenance be paid to the petitioner-wife regularly, but
the arrear that would accrue on account of enhancing the
maintenance w.e.f. 22.02.2022 be paid to the petitioner-
wife in two equal installments payable on 1st March, 2025
and 1st May, 2025.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Location: High Court of Orissa
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 29th day of January, 2025/Subhasmita
