Dismissed

Subash Meher v. Khiraswari Meher

Orissa HC17 Apr 2023WP(C)/2202/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an interlocutory order granting pendente lite maintenance. The Court held that voluntary deductions from salary are irrelevant for quantum determination and that voluntary desertion is not a ground to deny maintenance under Section 24.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Family Court's order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 10,000/- monthly maintenance was dismissed.

Subash Meher Vs Khiraswari Meher — Maintenance and Alimony | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2202 of 2023

¶2

Subash Meher

¶3

…. Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Rashmi Kanta Sahu, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Khiraswari Meher

¶7

…. Opp. Party

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

17.04.2023

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶15

Order dated 29^th March, 2022 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Sonepur in IA No.16 of 2021 (arising out of Mat CS No.(CP) No.80 of 2019 is under challenge in this writ petition, whereby entertaining an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) the Petitioner has been directed pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of order, i.e., 29^th March, 2022 along with litigation expenses of Rs.7,000/-.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that although

¶17

gross salary of the Petitioner was Rs.51,978/-, who is serving as government teacher, but after deductions, he was receiving net salary of Rs.17,000/- per month. He has incurred loan for marriage of his sister and is maintaining old parents who are dependent on him. As such, direction to pay permanent alimony of Rs.10,000/- per month is excessive and unreasonable. It is also submitted that since the Opposite Party-wife left the matrimonial home voluntarily she is not entitled to pendente lite maintenance. These material aspects were lost sight of while

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

// 2 //

¶20

adjudicating the petition under Section 24 of the Act. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶21

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court finds that gross salary of the Petitioner for the month of February, 2022 was Rs.51,978/-. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that after repayment of the loan dues and other statutory deductions he is receiving a salary of Rs.17,000/- per month. Voluntary deductions from the salary of the Petitioner cannot be taken into consideration for determination of quantum of pendente lite maintenance. It further appears that the Opposite Party being the wife of the Petitioner has no sufficient means to maintain herself.

¶22

Taking into consideration the salary of the Petitioner, this Court feels that learned Judge, Family Court, Sonepur has committed no error in directing the Petitioner to pay pendente lite maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, voluntary desertion of the spouse, if any is not a ground to be considered while adjudicating a petition under Section 24 of the Act. As such, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

¶24

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶25

s.s.satapathy

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Subash Meher v. Khiraswari Meher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subash Meher v. Khiraswari Meher

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

Lokanath Meher Vs Kumari Meher

Laxmi Pr.Achari Vs Meerabai Achari

Sankarsan Dash Vs Manas Ranjan Dash

Kshirod Ch.Das@Babu Vs Ellora Das@Tikina

Narendra Naik Vs Chabirani Khosla

Jenamani Dei Vs Tp Central Odisha Distribution Ltd. Bbsr