Dismissed

Ratikanta Barik v. Laxmipriya Barik

Orissa HC7 Aug 2023RPFAM/47/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Revision Petition challenging an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and daughter. The Court rejected claims that the wife left without cause and held that maintenance calculation must use gross salary excluding voluntary deductions.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 18th June, 2019 in I.A. No.100 of 2019 has been vacated.

Ratikanta Barik Vs Laxmipriya Barik — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RPFAM No. 47 OF 2019

¶4

Ratikanta Barik

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Hemanta Kumar Ratsingh, Advocate

¶7

-versus-

¶8

Laxmipriya Barik and another

¶9

…. Opp. Parties Mr. Saugat Dash, Advocate

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

07.08.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

Judgment dated 11^th January, 2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore in Cr.P. No.423 of 2016 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 7^th December, 2016.

¶18

Mr. Ratsingh, learned counsel for the Petitioner assails the order on two grounds; firstly, the Opposite Party No.1-Wife left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and secondly the quantum of maintenance is unreasonable, which is not inconsonance with the net salary of the Petitioner.

¶19

It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause. In spite of repeated attempts and intervention of village gentries, she did not return to the matrimonial home. A compromise was also arrived at between the parties in which she agreed to reside with

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

Signature Not Verified

¶23

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09

¶24

the mother-in-law at Balasore town in a separate rented house. But, she did not agree to the same subsequently. Learned Judge, Family Court erroneously held that the net salary of the Petitioner is Rs.30,000/- per month. The Petitioner was, in fact, drawing Rs.20,031/- per month as his net salary. Thus, a direction to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to the Opposite Parties is unreasonable and warrants interference.

¶25

It is his submission that Exts.6 and 7 are the salary certificates produced by the Opposite Party No.1-Wife, which clearly disclose that the net income of the Petitioner is much less than that observed by learned Judge, Family Court. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and to remit the matter back to learned Judge, Family Court for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law.

¶26

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that although an allegation was made against the Opposite Party No.1 that she left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, but no evidence to that effect was adduced by the Petitioner. Further the salary certificates of the Petitioner for the month of April and May, 2018 clearly disclose that his gross salary was Rs.55,651/-. It is his submission that voluntary deduction cannot be taken into consideration for assessment of quantum of maintenance. He, therefore, submits that no illegality has been committed by learned Judge, Family Court in the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the RPFAM.

¶27

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that although an allegation was made by the Petitioner to the effect that she left the matrimonial home without any reasonable cause, but no documentary evidence was

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

// 3 //

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09

¶32

adduced by the Petitioner in that regard. It is categorically alleged that due to intervention of the village gentries, a compromise deed between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 was executed before Notary Public, wherein it was decided that the Opposite Party No.1 will reside at Balasore town in a rented house with her old mother-in-law. No such document was filed before learned Judge, Family Court for consideration. On the other hand, it appears that on the allegation of demand of dowry and domestic violence, several cases have been filed against the Petitioner at the instance of the Opposite Party No.1Wife. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that in her evidence, the Opposite Party No.1 had admitted that there was a compromise. On the background that she was ill-treated for demand of dowry and in absence of document alleged to have been executed before Notary Public, I am not persuaded to accept the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶33

Admittedly no evidence has been adduced by the Petitioner with regard to his income. However, Exts.6 and 7 the salary certificates of April and May, 2018 were produced by the Opposite Party No.1, which disclose that the gross salary of the Petitioner was Rs.55,651/- per month. Voluntary deductions of the Petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for determination of his salary. It appears that a sum of Rs.35,030/is being deducted from salary of the Petitioner, which includes the GPF deductions also. While considering the income, voluntary deductions of GPF beyond the minimum statutory limit cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, learned trial Court has committed no error in directing the Petitioner to pay the maintenance as aforesaid.

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

// 4 //

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2023 10:28:09

¶38

Accordingly, this RPFAM being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶39

Interim order dated 18^th June, 2019 passed in I.A. No.100 of 2019 stands vacated.

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶43

Page 4 of 4

Ratikanta Barik v. Laxmipriya Barik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratikanta Barik v. Laxmipriya Barik

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

Samarendra Samal Vs Radha Gobinda Samal

Nirupama Sahoo Vs Jitendra Pradhan

Indian Tea Provision Vs Rama K.Dasmohapatra

Subhasis Pani Vs Itishree Panda@Pany

Satyanarayan Singh Vs Mahadev Mohanta

Pupuni@Kallola Malla Vs Sujata@Puspa Mohanty