Revision dismissed against Family Court order enhancing maintenance to Rs.3,000/month each for wife and daughter. Court held enhancement reasonable despite petitioner's provisional pension status.
Revision petition dismissed; impugned order enhancing maintenance maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RPFAM NO. 32 OF 2020
This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
The Petitioner by filing this revision has assailed an order dated 23.12.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Dhenkanal in CRP No.14 of 2019 in a proceeding under section-127(1) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the Opposite Party No.1wife.
It may been stated here that Opposite Party No.1-wife had been granted monthly maintenance of Rs.7,00/- for her as also equal amount of monthly maintenance for her daughter (Opposite Party No.2) by an order dated 05.07.2010 in Criminal Misc. Case No.132 of 2006 in a proceeding under section-125 of the Cr.P.C. and that was in addition to the regular monthly maintenance of Rs.2,400/-. On an application under section 127(1) Cr.P.C. being moved by the Opposite Parties in Cr.P. No.14 of 2019, the Court below by order dated 23.12.2019 has enhanced the monthly maintenance payable to each of the Opposite Parties to Rs.3,000/-.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner (husband) submits that the Petitioner has by now retired from the service and is yet to receive the full pension and he having placed all the papers before the Employer, those are still under consideration and therefore he is under provisional pension. He, thus, submits that financial burden to this Petitioner by such enhancement of the maintenance dues to be paid to the opposite parties would cause serious hardship and sufferings by the Petitioner.
= 2 =
Keeping in view the submissions made, the impugned order being perused, it is seen that the Court below as against the claim of the Opposite Parties for enhancement of monthly maintenance to Rs.10,000/- for each has finally directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance to the Opposite Party No.1 as also equal amount for the Opposite Party No.2. For the purpose, it is seen that the Court below has examined the evidence laid by the parties and having undertaken said exercise, the decision as to the enhancement of maintenance has been arrived at being alive to the factual position that the Petitioner’s retirement from service would be after 31.08.2019 as shown by him in his document, Ext.A and the quantum of maintenance has been so determined. This Court does not find any such perversity in the said exercise so as to say that the outcome suffers from the vice of perversity. In view of lapse of more than a decade since the last order, the enhanced maintenance can in no way be said to be unreasonable.
In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision, which is accordingly dismissed.
As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.
…………………….. D. Dash, J.
Narayan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court's order enhancing monthly maintenance causes such hardship to a retired husband on provisional pension to warrant a revision.
Whether the enhanced maintenance amount is perverse given the applicant's financial position and the lapse of over a decade since the last order.
Whether this revision petition deserves to be entertained given the factual determination of the lower court.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (husband)
Opposite Party No.1-wife
Opposite Party No.2-daughter
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
