Dismissed

Prasanta Kumar Das v. Sabita Das

Orissa HC26 Apr 2023RPFAM/22/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondent to an appeal against a Family Court order directing payment of monthly maintenance. High Court found lack of evidence regarding wife's income or petitioner's inability to pay. Appellant's contentions regarding Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. and separation due to torture accepted below. Appeal dismissed without interference.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order dismissed; maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month remains in force.

Prasanta Kumar Das Vs Sabita Das — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM NO. 22 OF 2023

¶2

Prasanta Kumar Das

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr.Bhabani Shankar Mishra, Advocate

-versus-

Sabita Das

…. Opp. Party

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

26.04.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Judgment and order dated 19^th December, 2022 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in Cr.P. No.106 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party-wife from the date of application, i.e. 14^th September, 2016.

¶16

It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel that the Petitioner assails the impugned order on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the Opposite Party has left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. Secondly, it is urged that the Opposite Party has a higher income than the Petitioner from her goat farming. It is further submitted that after one year of the marriage, the Opposite Party left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason. Thus, the Opposite Party is not entitled to any maintenance in view of provision under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C.. It is also submitted that the Opposite Party has a goat farm and she is earning much more income than the Petitioner.

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-3.

¶20

Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner and after going through the record more particularly the impugned order, it appears that learned Judge, Family Court, Puri on assessment of the materials on record came to the conclusion that due to mental and physical torture inflicted on the Opposite Party on demand of dowry, she left the matrimonial home and is staying separately. Although the Petitioner alleged that the Opposite Party has a higher income than the Petitioner from goat farming, but no evidence to that effect has been adduced. It also appears that the Petitioner has no sufficient means to pay maintenance.

¶21

On perusal of the record, it appears that the Petitioner has not adduced any evidence with regard to his income. However, relying upon the minimum wages as notified by the State Government, learned Judge, Family Court, Puri held that the income of the Petitioner must not be less than Rs.15,000/- per month. In the absence of any material to the contrary, this Court finds that allowing maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the Opposite Party is not excessive.

¶22

In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-3. Accordingly, the RPFAM is dismissed.

¶23

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

¶24

bks

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Prasanta Kumar Das v. Sabita Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanta Kumar Das v. Sabita Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Omkarnand @ Omkarananda Purohit Vs State of Odisha

Sudeshna Patra@Ranasingh Vs Himansu Bhusan Ranasingh

Khirod Kumar Ota Vs Laxmidhar Ota

Anjarana Banka Vs a.Kuri

Rangadhar Sahoo Vs Alekha Chandra Sahoo

Kamalakanta Muduli Vs Sujata Behera@Muduli