Partly allowed

Raseswar Nayak v. Minarbha Nayak

Orissa HC15 Feb 2023RPFAM/64/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in revision holds that a wife refusing to live with her husband without sufficient reason is not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., but minor children of the marriage are entitled to maintenance, modifying the lower court order to grant maintenance only to the children.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance of Rs. 2,500 per month directed to be paid to Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 from 14.03.2012; claim of Opposite Party No. 1 dismissed.

Raseswar Nayak Vs Minarbha Nayak — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

RPFAM No. 64 OF 2014

¶3

Raseswar Nayak

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Ashok Kumar Das, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Minarbha Nayak and others

¶8

…. Opp. Parties None

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

15.02.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶16

Judgment dated 21^st April, 2014 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Berhampur in Cr.P. No.53 of 2012 is under challenge in this RPFAM, whereby the Petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.10,000/- per month to the Opposite Parties from the date of filing of the application, i.e., from 14^th March, 2012.

¶17

Mr. Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the relationship between the parties is not disputed. However, the Opposite Party No.1 without any sufficient reason, refused to stay with the Petitioner. Thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in view of the provision under Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C.. He drew attention of this Court to the finding of learned Judge, Family Court at Paragraph-8 of the impugned order under Annexure-1, which clearly discloses that the Opposite Party No.1 in her cross-examination has deposed that despite request of the Petitioner to stay with him, she is reluctant to go to Pune, i.e., her place of service and stay with him. It was also

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

admitted by her that the Petitioner has instituted a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for restitution of conjugal right and after receiving notice in the said petition, the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed. It is further submitted that in the meantime, although the proceeding under Section 9 of the Act has been allowed, but the Opposite Party No.1 is refusing to join the Petitioner.

¶21

Although the Opposite Party No.1 is represented through her learned counsel, but none appears on her behalf at the time of call.

¶22

On perusal of the record, it appears that the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel is correct. On her cross-examination, the Opposite Party No.1 had candidly admitted that in spite of request of the Petitioner to stay with him in his workplace, she was reluctant to go to Pune. Further, the Petitioner had arranged a rental house for the Opposite Parties for education of their children, namely, Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3. The Petitioner was sending money to the Opposite Parties regularly till 2010. Thereafter he stopped sending money for their maintenance. After intervention of the Higher Authority of the Petitioner, he was paying money for maintenance of the Opposite Parties till 2012. When he stopped payment, a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed.

¶23

In the instant case from the materials available on record, it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party No.1 has not made out any case to show that she has valid reason for refusal to stay with the Petitioner. Learned Judge, Family Court erroneously held that only because the Opposite Party No.1 is not interested to join the

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

Petitioner at present, cannot be a ground to disqualify her from getting maintenance. Such a finding is not sustainable, as from the materials available on record, it is established that without any sufficient reason, the Opposite Party No.1 has refused to stay with her husband. Thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance. But the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to maintenance, as they are admittedly the children born out of the wedlock of the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1.

¶27

In view of the above, the Opposite Party No.1 is not entitled to any maintenance. At the same time, this Court directs that each of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 shall be paid maintenance @ Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) per month from the date of application, i.e., 14^th March, 2012 till they attain their majority.

¶28

With the aforesaid modification and direction, the RPFAM is 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

Raseswar Nayak v. Minarbha Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raseswar Nayak v. Minarbha Nayak

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

Bishnupada Patra Vs Rabindra Nath Giri

Sk. Ahamed Ali Vs the Superintending Engineer, Tpcodl, Bbsr

Shaik [email protected] Vs Sirat Bibi

Harish Ch.Dey Vs Parbati Dey

Dillip Khanda Vs Kumari Nayak and Anr.

Gobinda Ganik Vs Lalita Ganik