Partly allowed

Binod Parida v. Bishnu Priya Parida

Orissa HC9 Feb 2023RPFAM/103/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,000 monthly maintenance. Considering lack of documentary income proof and interim payments, the Court ordered Rs. 2,000 for the wife and Rs. 1,000 each for minor children from May 2010, with arrears in ten monthly instalments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to pay Rs. 2,000/month to wife and Rs. 1,000/month to each minor child from 19.05.2010; arrears payable in ten equal monthly instalments.

Binod Parida Vs Bishnu Priya Parida — Succession and Inheritance | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

RPFAM No. 103 OF 2011

¶3

Binod Parida

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Debasis Panigrahi, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. Bishnu Priya Parida and others Opp. Parties Mr. Suvashish Pattnaik, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

09.02.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Judgment dated 3^rd August, 2011 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar in Criminal Proceeding No.81 of 2010 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.6,000/- per month i.e. Rs.2,000/- each per month to the Opposite Parties from the date of filing of the proceeding i.e. 19^th May, 2010.

¶16

Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel submits that the Petitioner during the relevant period was working as a driver in a private vehicle. He also submits that the Opposite Party No.1 has independent source of income and she was earning Rs.10,000/-

¶17

per month during the relevant period. The Petitioner being a driver was getting Rs.3,000/- per month. He being a low paid driver in a private vehicle, direction to pay Rs.6,000/- per month, as maintenance is unreasonable and requires re-consideration. He also drew attention of the Court to the interim order dated 22^nd September, 2011 passed in M.C. No.135 of 2011, whereby this

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

Court while issuing notice in the matter, directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.3,500/- per month, as maintenance to the Opposite Parties starting from September, 2011. The said amount is being paid regularly by the Petitioner. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and remit the matter to learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar for re-consideration of quantum of maintenance.

¶21

Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties vehemently objects to the same and submits that Rs.6,000/- per month, as maintenance at the relevant period was not sufficient for maintenance of the Opposite Parties, namely, the wife and two minor children of the Petitioner. No evidence, whatsoever, was adduced by the Petitioner with regard to his income. A bald allegation was made that the Opposite Party No.1 was earning Rs.10,000/- per month during the relevant period. But, no document to that effect was filed by the Petitioner. He, however, submits that the Petitioner is regularly paying the maintenance to the Opposite Party as per the interim order of this Court. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order warrants no interference.

¶22

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that no documentary evidence with regard to the income of either of the parties, namely, the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 was filed before learned Judge, Family Court, Bhubaneswar. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court had to make a guess work to ascertain the income and assess the quantum of maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court while discussing the matter at Paragraph-5 of the impugned order,

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

// 3 //

¶25

has observed that, even if, the wife is earning some income that does not amount to disentitle her for getting the maintenance. Thus, learned Judge, Family Court was of the opinion that the Opposite Party No.1 had some income. It is also admitted by the parties that the Petitioner is paying maintenance @ Rs.3,500/- per month to the Opposite Parties pursuant to the interim order dated 22^nd September, 2011.

¶26

In that view of the matter, this Court feels that a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only) per month (i.e. Rs.2,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.1-wife and Rs.1,000/per month to each of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the Court so directs.

¶27

Thus, the impugned order is modified to the aforesaid extent directing the Petitioner to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) per month to the Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each per month to Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 till they attain the age of their majority from the date of the filing of the application i.e. 19^th May, 2010. Arrears shall also be paid in ten equal by monthly instalments.

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this RPFAM stands disposed of.

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶30

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶31

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Binod Parida v. Bishnu Priya Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Parida v. Bishnu Priya Parida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Naik Vs Lokanath Sahoo

Rabindranath Bhoi Vs State of Odisha

Subhalaxmi Behera Vs Sanjay Tripathy

Subhasmita Khatua Vs Kausik Kumar Sahoo

Pradeep K.Panigrahy@ Vs Archana Panda

Sasmita Rath @ Tripathy Vs Surya Prasad Tripathy