Manoj Kumar Dash vs Pravati Mishra & Another ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1372 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1372 Ori
Judgement Date : 17 July, 2025

Orissa High Court

Manoj Kumar Dash vs Pravati Mishra & Another ... Opposite ... on 17 July, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               RPFAM No.117 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section 19(4) of the
   Family Courts Act, 1984).

   Manoj Kumar Dash                   ...         Petitioner
                           -versus-

   Pravati Mishra & another           ...   Opposite Parties

   For Petitioner           : Ms. S.Sunadini, Advocate

   For Opposite Parties     : None

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

  F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:17.07.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioner by way of this revision U/S.

19(4) of Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Sec.

438/442 of the BNSS seeks to challenge the impugned

order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the learned Judge

Family Court, Khordha in Criminal Proceeding No. 233

of 2023 dismissing the application of the petitioner for

alteration of the maintenance as awarded to the OPs

earlier, in an application U/S. 127 of the CrPC.

2. Heard Ms.S.Sunadini, learned counsel for

the petitioner and perused the record including the

certified copy of affidavit of assets and liabilities filed by

the petitioner.

3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has

since being retired from Army, but he has been directed

to pay maintenance to OPs- wife and son @ Rs.6,000/-

each per month and in this application U/S.127 of the

CrPC, he has prayed to reduce the amount to

Rs.3,000/- each to the OPs-wife and son on the ground

that he has been retired from service. However, on

perusal of the disclosure affidavit, it appears to the

Court that the petitioner has stated NA(Not Applicable)

against the Column "Details of income of the deponent"

in the affidavit of assets and liability. Further, the

learned trial Court while disposing the application has

also stated in Paragarph-6 that the petitioner is hiding

his income before the Court. It is also not in dispute

that the petitioner in such disclosure statement has

stated his general monthly expenditure as Rs.25,000/-.

Even if taking into oral submission as advanced for the

petitioner and the materials borne out from the record,

the petitioner is stated to be getting Rs.20,000/- per

month, but his approximate expenditure is Rs.25,000/-

which is quite misleading and unacceptable. Further, no

document or evidence has been produced by the

petitioner to evidence his monthly earning or income,

but it is an admitted case that the petitioner is a retired

Army personnel and he must have received the

retirement benefit also, which is also partly admitted by

the petitioner by mentioning that he has received

Rs.6,31,881/- towards retirement benefits. It,

therefore, appears to the Court that the petitioner has

not approached the Court with clean hand, rather he

has suppressed his income and the learned trial Court

has rightly decided the application for alteration of the

maintenance U/S. 127 of the Cr.PC and, therefore, the

present revision merits no consideration.