Batakrushna Behera vs Rosy Behera & Another ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1554 Ori

Orissa High Court

Batakrushna Behera vs Rosy Behera & Another ... Opposite ... on 22 July, 2025

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                   RPFAM No.132 of 2024

   (An appeal under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts'
   Act, read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal
   Procedure, 1973).

   Batakrushna Behera                 ...          Petitioner
                           -versus-

   Rosy Behera & Another              ...   Opposite Parties

   For Petitioner           : Mr. T.P. Tripathy, Advocate

   For Opposite Parties     : Mr. P.C. Jena, Advocate

       CORAM:
                   JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

 F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:22.07.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The petitioner-husband being dissatisfied

with the quantum of maintenance as granted to the

OP-wife and minor daughter, has challenged the

impugned judgment dated 01.03.2024 passed by

learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda in Criminal

Petition No.146 of 2020 U/S. 19(4) of the Family

Courts' Act, 1984 r/w. Section 401 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. Heard Mr. Tarini Prasad Tripathy, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pravat Kumar Jena,

learned counsel for the OP in the matter and perused

the record.

3. Admittedly, the learned trial Court by the

impugned judgment has directed the petitioner-

husband to pay Rs.6,800/- to OP No.1-cum-wife and

Rs.5,000/- to OP No.2-cum-minor daughter, but facts

remains that both the parties have filed their

disclosure affidavits before the learned trial Court,

wherein the learned trial Court has assessed the net

income of the petitioner-husband at Rs.27,215/- per

month and quantified the maintenance at 25% of

such income. Be that as it may, it is claimed by the

petitioner-husband that since he is having dependent

widow sister and niece as well as old ailing parents,

he is facing much difficulty to share 25% of his

admitted income, but he never disowns his liability to

pay maintenance to his wife and minor daughter. The

only question left for adjudication in this revision is

the quantum of maintenance. The learned trial Court

has granted a sum of Rs.6,800/- to OP-wife, but

taking into consideration the present date market

index and the cost of living as well as the right of the

wife to live commensurate to the standard of

husband, this Court feels that interest of justice

would be best served, if the quantum of maintenance

as awarded to the OP-wife is reduced to Rs.5,000/-,

but this Court considers it undesirable to reduce the

maintenance of OP No.2-minor daughter, since there

is not only the requirement for her education, but

also there is other requirements of the child which

the parents cannot deny. It is also not in dispute that

the OP-wife is a housewife and she has to depend for

her maintenance on the income of her husband.

4. From the discussion made hereinabove,

this Court considers it proper to modify the impugned

order by directing the petitioner-husband to pay

Rs.5,000/- per month each to the wife and minor

daughter w.e.f. the date of filing of application.

5. In the result, the present RPFAM stands

allowed to the extent indicated above and the

impugned order is accordingly modified.

(G. Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 22nd day of July, 2025/S.Sasmal

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 23-Jul-2025 11:06:33